Ontario College of Teachers v. Gonsalves, 2015 ONOCT 30

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Gonsalves, 2015 ONOCT 30

Date: 2015-06-08

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Stanley Jerome Gonsalves, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Mel Greif, Chair Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT Louis Sloan, OCT

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Eli Mogil, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Beverley Hodsdon, Law Clerk

-and-

STANLEY JEROME GONSALVES (CERTIFICATE # 507170) Bernard Hanson, Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP, for Stanley Jerome Gonsalves

Julie Maciura, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: June 19, 20, 21, 2013, November 15, 2013, December 16, 2013, January 20, 23, 2014, July 23-25 2014, October 7, 2014, December 17, 2014, and January 28, 2015.

DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 19, 2013 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated April 27, 2011, was served on Stanley Jerome Gonsalves (the “Member”), requesting his presence on May 10, 2011 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set to commence on June 19, 2013. The proceedings continued on June 20 and 21, 2013, November 15, 2013, December 16, 2013, January 20 and 23, 2014, July 23-25, 2014, October 7, 2014, December 17, 2014, and January 28, 2015.

The Member was in attendance throughout the hearing.

OVERVIEW

The allegations in this case arose as a result of the Member’s teaching performance during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years, and they all relate to the Member’s competency as a teacher. As a new teacher, the Member was subject to the New Teacher Induction Program (the “NTIP”), which was first introduced in Ontario at the beginning of the 2006-2007 academic year. In accordance with the requirements of the NTIP, the Member’s teaching performance was formally assessed on three separate occasions at the two different schools in which he taught during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years. The Member did not receive a satisfactory rating on any of his three appraisals.

The task for the Committee is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegations, and if so, whether the Member’s conduct should give rise to a finding of professional misconduct or incompetence.

As will be explained in detail below, there were numerous issues that arose with respect to the Member’s performance appraisals at both of his schools. At his first school, the NTIP and the Member’s obligations thereunder were not explained in a timely manner, the Member was assigned to a very challenging class, and he was not provided with adequate mentorship or support in a timely manner. By the time the proper support was put in place for the Member, he was already in a very difficult position as a new teacher. At his second school, while the Member was provided with support in a more timely manner, the conclusions that his principal reached on his third and final performance appraisal do not withstand scrutiny and they are not sufficiently supported by the evidence.

When properly implemented, the NTIP should help new teachers learn their craft and adjust to the demands of the teaching profession. Unfortunately, in the Member’s case, the program was improperly implemented and contributed to the loss of his employment. Given the numerous issues that arose with respect to the implementation of the program and the conclusions drawn on the Member’s performance appraisals, the Committee does not find that the College has met its burden of proving the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing.

Accordingly, the Committee has determined that the allegations of incompetence and professional misconduct were not proven against the Member.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated April 27, 2011 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Stanley Jerome Gonsalves is incompetent and/or guilty of professional misconduct as defined in sections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(c) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or a disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Stanley Jerome Gonsalves is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was an employee of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) and was a probationary teacher under the New Teacher Induction Program. The Member taught at two schools of the Board, namely St. Brigid School (“School 1”) and St. Maria Goretti Elementary School (“School 2”) in Brampton, Ontario.

3. The Member’s performance as a teacher was formally assessed during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years. Summative Reports were prepared dated February 5, 2007, May 22, 2007 and December 21, 2007, respectively. On February 5, 2007 the Member’s rating indicated ‘Development Needed’, and on each of May 22, 2007 and December 21, 2007, his performance was assessed as ‘Unsatisfactory’.

4. In the areas of Commitment to Pupils and Pupil Learning, Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice, it was determined that the Member, inter alia:

(a) failed to motivate and improve student learning and to effectively challenge his students;

(b) failed to engage all students in group activities, and to use teaching strategies to maximize student learning;

(c) failed to consistently demonstrate commitment to the well-being and development of his students, and to provide for their individual needs;

(d) failed to provide appropriate feedback to students, and to encourage risk-taking and experimentation by the establishment of a non-threatening learning environment;

(e) failed to consistently address inappropriate student behaviour;

(f) failed to demonstrate an understanding and ability to explain subject areas in a sequential manner and to effectively demonstrate a solid knowledge of the subject matter, the Ontario curriculum and education-related legislation;

(g) failed to teach the curriculum for the Religion program;

(h) failed to make use of core resources provided and to effectively demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of Board policies and procedures;

(i) failed to develop clear and achievable classroom expectations and to ensure that students followed through with posted classroom expectations;

(j) failed to use a variety of techniques and appropriate assessment and evaluation techniques in order to gather accurate data on student performance;

(k) failed to keep comprehensive records of student achievement;

(l) failed to frequently and consistently provide feedback in student notebooks, and to keep both his students and their parents informed of student progress and achievement;

(m) failed to effectively communicate with his students and their parents, and with his colleagues.

5. Despite efforts to assist the Member, the Member’s performance failed to improve to a satisfactory level.

6. At a meeting of the Board on January 29, 2008, it was resolved that the Member’s employment by the Board be terminated, effective January 30, 2008. The Member was so advised.

MEMBER’S PLEA

The Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

EVIDENCE OF THE COLLEGE

The College called five witnesses, including two school principals, one of the Member’s mentors, and two Board administrators. Several of the witnesses testified over several days and gave extensive evidence. While the Committee has carefully reviewed all of the evidence in detail, the following serves as a brief summary, and highlights some of the major themes addressed in the witnesses’ evidence.

Testimony of Ms. Barbara Burmaster

Ms. Burmaster’s career in education began in 1987, and included five years working as a principal and five years as a vice-principal. Her first year as a principal was during the 2006-2007 academic year, when she began working at School 1. Prior to the 2006-2007 academic year, Ms. Burmaster worked as a vice-principal and as a teacher for more than a decade.

New Teacher Induction Program

During her testimony, Principal Burmaster described the NTIP. This was a program established by the Ontario government to ensure that new teachers received adequate support. Under the NTIP, new teachers were supported through mentorship and professional development opportunities, and their teaching performance was appraised twice during the first year of their teaching careers.

Although the NTIP was only introduced in 2006, Principal Burmaster testified that she was very familiar with its requirements when she became the principal of School 1 at the start of the 2006-2007 academic year. She had reviewed NTIP-related material and attended training workshops prior to the start of the 2006-2007 academic year. Principal Burmaster further testified that she had significant experience conducting teacher performance appraisals and working with new teachers prior to the 2006-2007 academic year.

Support offered to the Member before his first NTIP appraisal

Principal Burmaster testified at length about the support that she offered to the Member who was a first-year teacher at School 1. Among other things, this support included providing an orientation to new teachers, giving the Member a tour of the school facilities and providing him with information, course materials and supplies, and following up with the Member before the start of the academic year to ensure that he had everything that he needed.

Once the 2006-2007 academic year began, Principal Burmaster connected the Member to his colleagues so that they could help him with his classroom management and his planning. The Member’s colleagues offered him their unit plans, and the principal also acquired the long-range plans of the previous year’s teacher to assist the Member. In addition, the Member was given two mentors, as of October 2006, to help him develop his skills in the areas of daily planning, classroom scheduling, checking student agendas, following up on homework, and classroom management and organization.

Principal Burmaster testified that the Member also attended several in-services to help him adjust to his new role. These workshops were either run by the Board or by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (“OECTA”). The principal testified that the Member attended four in-services in October, November, and December 2006 that addressed the issues of student assessment and evaluation, and classroom management, among others.

Concerns with the Member’s teaching practice

As the Fall 2006 semester progressed, Principal Burmaster became concerned that the Member was not keeping parents informed of his students’ progress. This principal was also concerned about the Member’s classroom management and classroom environment, his communication, and his assessment and evaluation of students. The principal noted that she was so concerned with the Member’s teaching performance that she postponed his first classroom observation, which formed part of the NTIP appraisal. She added that the Member’s mentors were also frustrated with him in December 2006 and January 2007.

First NTIP appraisal

Principal Burmaster testified that, prior to the Member’s first NTIP appraisal, she had thoroughly reviewed the process with him and informed him that she would review his day plans, daybook, and his student assessments and evaluations, in addition to observing him teaching a lesson.

Principal Burmaster prepared a Summative Report (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 5) dated February 5, 2007, following the Member’s first NTIP appraisal. The pre-observation meeting was held on January 10, 2007, the classroom observation was held on January 17, 2007, and the post-observation meeting was held on January 30, 2007. Principal Burmaster described her findings, in detail, which related to the following eight competencies assessed under the NTIP:

1. The teacher demonstrates commitment to the well-being and development of all pupils;

2. The teacher is dedicated in his or her efforts to teach and support pupil learning and achievement;

3. The teacher treats all pupils equitably and with respect;

4. The teacher provides an environment for learning that encourages pupils to be problem solvers, decision makers, lifelong learners and contributing members of a changing society;

5. The teacher knows his or her subject matter, the Ontario curriculum, and education-related legislation;

6. The teacher uses his or her professional knowledge and understanding of pupils, curriculum, legislation, teaching practices, and classroom management strategies to promote the learning and achievement of his or her pupils;

7. The teacher communicates effectively with pupils, parents, and colleagues; and

8. The teacher conducts ongoing assessment of his or her pupils’ progress, evaluates their achievement, and reports results to pupils and parents regularly.

Principal Burmaster concluded that the Member’s overall rating was Development Needed (as opposed to Satisfactory), given her assessment that the Member needed support in six of the eight competencies outlined above. According to Principal Burmaster, the Member’s performance was only satisfactory with regard to competencies “3” and “5”: the Member treated all pupils equitably and with respect, and the Member knew his subject matter, the Ontario curriculum, and education-related legislation.

Generally, Principal Burmaster was concerned that the Member’s students did not seem engaged, she was concerned with the Member’s classroom management skills and his questioning techniques, she found his professional practice to be weak, and she was concerned that she had not received his assessment and evaluation or his daybook when she had asked for them.

Principal Burmaster testified that, due to the Member’s poor results, she was obligated to send the first Summative Report to Superintendent Geiser and to Human Resources. The Board administrators reviewed and accepted Principal Burmaster’s findings.

Enrichment Plan

Following the Member’s first unsuccessful NTIP appraisal, Principal Burmaster developed a New Teacher Enrichment Plan (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 5) in February 2007 (“Enrichment Plan”). On February 23, 2007, she held a lengthy meeting with the Member in which they discussed a number of issues relating to the Member’s teaching practice (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 8). Principal Burmaster also gave the Member the opportunity to contribute to his Enrichment Plan by adding additional support mechanisms, but he had nothing to add.

Principal Burmaster described the Enrichment Plan in detail. The plan made many suggestions for improvement and included various support mechanisms to assist the Member. For example, the Member was offered the opportunity to attend in-services and was provided with the release days to do so, and it was suggested that he visit another grade 8 classroom to learn from a more experienced teacher (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15K). According to Principal Burmaster, despite the Member’s comments that he would make every effort to be a good and effective teacher and that he would strive to follow the Enrichment Plan, the Member did not implement the recommendations.

The Member shows minimal improvement following his first NTIP appraisal

Principal Burmaster testified that, following his first NTIP appraisal, she provided significant support to the Member and met with him more than ten times during the first three weeks of March 2007 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14). The Member, however, was still not meeting expectations. As of March 7, 2007, Principal Burmater had still not received the Member’s student assessments or his day plans as requested (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15K). By March 26, 2007, the Member had only shown minimal improvement and he had not implemented many of the suggestions contained in the Enrichment Plan (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 10). Principal Burmaster remained concerned with his communication with parents, his assessment and evaluation, and his classroom management.

Second NTIP appraisal

On April 12, 2007, Principal Burmaster held a pre-observation meeting with the Member and his union representative (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15H), where she set out her expectations for the Member’s second NTIP appraisal. The principal also assessed the Member’s long-range plans, his daybook, and his student assessments, and she was concerned that the Member had only covered one Science unit (of five) between September 2006 and April 2007 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15D). Principal Burmaster also testified that the Member’s student assessments were inaccurate.

Principal Burmaster conducted the Member’s second classroom observation on April 18, 2007 and held the post-observation meeting on May 1, 2007. The principal assessed the same eight competencies during this NTIP appraisal as she had during the first NTIP appraisal. The Member received an unsatisfactory rating on his second NTIP appraisal.

Principal Burmaster testified that, of the eight competencies, the Member’s teaching practice was only satisfactory with regard to the second and third competency: he was dedicated in his efforts to teach and support pupil learning and achievement, and he continued to treat all students equitably and with respect. Although the Member showed some improvement since his first NTIP appraisal (e.g. the learning environment in his classroom had improved, more students were participating, and his daybook was up-to-date) (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 12), Principal Burmaster testified that he required intensive support in a number of areas.

Among other deficiencies, Principal Burmaster highlighted the following issues: the Member struggled to engage his students; he did not cover nearly enough of the curriculum and parents had complained that there was a lack of work, student understanding, and testing in his class; his classroom management remained unsatisfactory and he did not use instructional time in a focused and purposeful way; he did not communicate clear, challenging and achievable expectations to students; and he did not adequately report student progress nor did he keep comprehensive records of student achievements.

Principal Burmaster sent the results of the second NTIP appraisal to Human Resources and to her superintendent for review and approval. Given that this was the second time that the Member had not achieved a satisfactory rating on his NTIP appraisal, he was placed on “review status”.

Improvement Plan

Given his poor NTIP appraisals, Principal Burmaster developed a New Teacher Improvement Plan (Exhibit 3 at Tab 11) in May 2007 (“Improvement Plan”) to support the Member over the remainder of the academic year and into the next academic year. The Member approved and signed the Improvement Plan and it was sent to Human Resources and to the superintendent.

Principal Burmaster described the Improvement Plan and the support that was offered to the Member therein. Among other things, the Member was given the opportunity to visit and observe colleagues’ classrooms to learn from them; he was given access to a number of human resources at School 1, including mentors, consultants, and social workers; the Board made relevant courses available to the Member during the summer of 2007 and offered to pay for the courses; and the principal offered to discuss strategies with the Member to develop his skills in the areas of his teaching practice that required improvement (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 11). The Member had nothing to add to the Improvement Plan or its recommendations, in the space provided.

Member’s transfer out of School 1

On May 18, 2007, the Member received a letter from the Board informing him that he had been transferred to a new school (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 13). Principal Burmaster testified that she was not part of the decision to transfer the Member, but that because enrolment at School 1 had decreased, the Member had to be transferred according to the Board’s policy. The Board later determined that School 1 had enough students for the Member to return to his former teaching position, which he opted to do. During the summer of 2007, however, enrolment declined again at School 1 and the Member was transferred to School 2 for the 2007-2008 academic year.

Cross-examination of Ms. Burmaster

During cross-examination, Principal Burmaster agreed with Member’s Counsel that the Member had received the highest possible rating (outstanding) during his interview process for his teaching position with the Board (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 5).

Principal Burmaster also acknowledged that, “in their first year, new teachers are confronted with two very complex and challenging tasks. They have to teach and at the same time learn to teach at a very rapid rate” (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 10). She agreed that making mistakes is part of the learning process. When pushed on the issue, Principal Burmaster acknowledged that not every mistake made by the Member counted for the purposes of his NTIP appraisals, but she was unable to explain where she drew the line between mistakes that counted towards her evaluation of the Member and those that did not and were simply part of his learning process.

Principal Burmaster acknowledged that in order for professional development to be effective, it has to be manageable and timely (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 12). She noted that, in early September 2006, she had concerns with the Member’s classroom management and daily planning (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14), but she conceded that she did not document any of her observations in this regard.

With respect to the orientation component of the NTIP, Principal Burmaster agreed that she assumed that the Member had received a clear explanation of the purpose and structure of the NTIP, including information about the appraisal process, from his in-servicing with the Board and through OECTA in August, September and October 2006. She conceded that she had never asked the Member about the content of any of these training sessions.

Moreover, during her meeting with the Member on August 4, 2006, Principal Burmaster agreed that she had not discussed the NTIP or the appraisal process with the Member. She further agreed that she had not provided him with any NTIP-related materials (see Exhibit 4A at Tabs 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 and Exhibit 4B at Tab 14), and that the only NTIP-related materials that she provided to the Member were those set out in her memorandum dated January 8, 2007 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 20).

With respect to the mentoring component of the NTIP, Principal Burmaster agreed that, at no point during the 2006-2007 academic year, did she provide a copy of the NTIP Resource Handbook for Mentors (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 13) to the Member’s mentors, Ms. Duke and Mr. Dolan. She conceded that the only NTIP-related materials that she provided to the mentors were those attached to the January 8, 2007 memorandum (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 20).

With respect to the training that the mentors received, Principal Burmaster agreed that her calendar (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15A) and the Board’s documentation indicated that only Ms. Duke attended the training session on November 30, 2006. Ms. Duke was the Member’s specialty mentor, and not his contact mentor, who should have attended the training session. Despite her assertion that Mr. Dolan was trained, Principal Burmaster could not point to any evidence that showed when he received formal mentor training.

Principal Burmaster conceded that the earliest training that the mentors could have received was on November 30, 2006. She also acknowledged that the mentors were directed not to continue participating in the mentorship program after January 2007. Principal Burmaster therefore conceded that, at most, the mentors only participated in the mentorship program for approximately a month and a half. Principal Burmaster could also not produce any evidence to show when the mentors met with the Member and for what purpose.

With respect to the Member’s classroom management, Principal Burmaster acknowledged that, although she had identified this as a concern in September 2006, the first workshop that the Member attended that had any real bearing on his intermediate grade classroom management issues was held on March 23, 2007. This was only a matter of days before his second NTIP appraisal. Principal Burmaster further acknowledged that, by April 2007, the Member had made some improvements with respect to his classroom management (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14).

Member’s Counsel also questioned Principal Burmaster about the NTIP Strategy Form (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 18), which was a mandatory form that was to be used as a vehicle for discussion on learning, planning, tracking, and recording participation in the NTIP. Principal Burmaster acknowledged that the first time she instructed the Member or his mentors to make use of this important form was in the January 8, 2007 memorandum (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 20). This form should have been explained to the Member at the beginning of his employment. Similarly, the Evidence Log (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 18), which was a useful but optional form, was only provided to the Member on January 8, 2007.

With respect to the Member’s grade 8 class, Principal Burmaster agreed that the first teaching assignment for new teachers is critical and that they should not be assigned to difficult classes if that can be avoided. Principal Burmaster was aware that the other intermediate teachers had advised the Member that his grade 8 class was difficult to manage. She also acknowledged that Mr. Dolan believed that the grade 8 class was one of the most difficult classes in the school.

Principal Burmaster also conceded that the Member addressed the different learning styles of his students (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14 and Exhibit 4B at Tab 40) after she raised the issue with him on February 26, 2007 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 8). She further acknowledged that the Member had reviewed his behaviour expectations with his students by March 26, 2007 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 39), despite not having posted them yet, and that he had made progress with respect to his students who had not been completing their homework (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 8).

With respect to Principal Burmaster’s evidence that the Member had not followed through on her suggestion that he visit a more experienced teacher’s classroom, the principal acknowledged that in March 2007, the Member had attempted to arrange a visit but that the other teacher had not responded (see Exhibit 4B at Tabs 39 and 46).

Principal Burmaster also conceded that the first time she noted that the Member was not teaching enough of the curriculum was in April 2007 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14). This was not raised as a concern in either the February 26, 2007 memorandum or the March 28, 2007 e-mail from Principal Burmaster to the Member (see Exhibit 4B at Tabs 30 and 40).

With respect to Principal Burmaster’s testimony that the Member had not submitted any diagnostic or formative student assessments as she had requested, the principal acknowledged that the Member had offered to show her his assessments in a digital format on his computer.

Re-examination of Ms. Burmaster

In re-examination, Principal Burmaster testified that, although the Member received an outstanding rating during his interview process, the interviewers did not see the Member in the classroom, interacting with students and staff, and they did not review his lesson plans.

Principal Burmaster also clarified that, although she had indicated that the Member had made some improvements by April 2007 as indicated in her note of April 24, 2007 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14), the Member’s teaching performance was still not satisfactory.

With respect to the homework issues involving the Member’s students, Principal Burmaster testified that, although the Member had managed to reduce the number of students who were not doing their homework to six out of twenty-four by February 2007, it was still concerning that there were six students in the Member’s class who were not doing their homework.

Finally, with respect to the training of the Member’s mentors, Principal Burmaster noted that even if they had not received formal training before November 2006, she remained confident in their abilities to mentor the Member early in the 2006-2007 academic year. She indicated that both teachers were very strong and had taught grade 8 before, and both were good leaders.

Testimony of Ms. Franca Bernard

Ms. Bernard’s career in education began in 1979 and she worked as a teacher until 2000. In 2000, Ms. Bernard became a vice-principal, and in 2003 she began working as the principal at School 2. Principal Bernard testified that, prior to 2007, she had been involved with many teacher appraisals and had prepared approximately 35 Summative Reports. By the fall of 2007, she felt very comfortable conducting NTIP appraisals.

Principal Bernard’s interactions with the Member prior to his third NTIP appraisal

When the Member was assigned to her school at the beginning of the 2007-2008 academic year, Principal Bernard was aware that he had been placed on “review status” and she was prepared to provide him with any assistance that he needed. Principal Bernard kept a detailed log of the support that she had provided to the Member (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18F). In August 2007, for instance, Principal Bernard gave the Member a tour of the facilities and discussed her expectations with him. She also provided the Member with the previous year’s teacher handbook, timetable and long-range plans to assist him with his transition to School 2.

The Member got off to a slow start to the academic year. Principal Bernard testified that the Member first started to set up his classroom on August 30, 2007, despite being offered access to his classroom on August 22, 2007. She would have expected a new teacher to take advantage of the additional set-up time offered. Principal Bernard further testified that the Member was late for the first day of school on September 4, 2007, despite her request that all teachers arrive 15 minutes early to meet their students. Principal Bernard indicated that the Member had arrived to school late on several occasions, and that she e-mailed the Member on October 18, 2007 to remind him to arrive on time (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18C).

Principal Bernard also had concerns with the Member’s lesson plans and student notebooks in September 2007; the Member had not provided the principal with these materials on time. On October 4, 2007, Principal Bernard met with the Member to discuss his lesson plans, which did not meet her expectations. At this meeting, the Member also requested that Principal Bernard informally observe one of his classes and offer some suggestions, prior to any formal observation as part of his third NTIP appraisal. Principal Bernard agreed to do this, but she was disappointed that the Member was disorganized and unprepared for this exercise on October 11, 2007.

On October 15, 2007, Principal Bernard e-mailed the Member with regard to his informal observation and to request some outstanding documents from him (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18C). Principal Bernard noted in her e-mail that the Member had still not submitted his inventory, his register, or his supply teacher handbook, as requested. She also indicated that she and the Member had agreed to postpone the formal classroom observation from October 15, 2007 until the end of October 2007, because they both needed more time to prepare.

On November 21, 2007, Principal Bernard met briefly with the Member to try to set a new date for his NTIP appraisal, which had been further delayed. According to Principal Bernard, the Member had indicated that he was busy with Report Cards and wanted to complete them before undergoing his third NTIP evaluation (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18F).

On November 29, 2007, Principal Bernard met with the Member to discuss his Report Cards, which she had reviewed, and she indicated that they contained errors and required revision.

On December 5, 2007, Principal Bernard e-mailed the Member to confirm new dates for his NTIP evaluation (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18C). She testified that the Member chose to be observed teaching a Science class. In an e-mail dated December 11, 2007, Principal Bernard indicated that she had placed several NTIP-related forms (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18G) in the Member’s mailbox for his review, which she had previously provided to him on October 10, 2007.

Third NTIP appraisal

Principal Bernard testified that she held the pre-observation meeting with the Member and his OECTA representative on December 14, 2007. The meeting was scheduled for 3:00 p.m., but the Member arrived approximately 20 minutes late. Principal Bernard added that the Member had difficulty describing the composition of his class, despite having been given the pre-observation form in advance so that he would be prepared for the meeting.

The classroom observation that had been scheduled for December 17, 2007 was postponed until December 18, 2007 due to a snowstorm. Principal Bernard described the classroom observation in detail (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 3). Although the class was scheduled to start at 1:20 p.m. it only began at 1:35 p.m., which Principal Bernard found surprising because teachers are typically very organized in anticipation of their appraisals, and they tend to begin their lessons on time.

Principal Bernard further testified that she observed several issues during the Member’s lesson. For example, the class was unusually loud, some groups did not know what they were supposed to do, some students were off-task, some were not sufficiently involved in the group activity, and the Member had trouble getting his students’ attention when it was time to clean up.

Principal Bernard testified that she decided to stay to observe the Member’s next class to determine if his delivery of the same lesson would improve with different students. She testified that his teaching performance did not improve: students did not understand the concepts that were being taught; the second class was also noisy and unfocused; students were not paying attention to their peers’ presentations; the Member did not explain to his class how they were going to be evaluated; and, the Member did not take notes while groups were presenting, in order to be able to accurately evaluate them.

Principal Bernard described the Summative Report (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5) in detail, in which she concluded that the Member’s overall teaching performance was unsatisfactory given that he did not meet expectations with respect to seven of the eight competencies assessed. Among other things, Principal Bernard found that: the Member did not sufficiently engage or challenge his students; he did not properly deliver the Religion curriculum and he did not appear to fully know his subject matter; he did not consistently arrive to school on time; his lessons were not taught in a clear and organized manner; he made infrequent and inconsistent use of student agendas; and, his student assessments were unsatisfactory. The Member contested many of the principal’s findings (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5); however, she disagreed with several of his comments.

Principal Bernard further testified that, on December 19, 2007, she held the post-observation meeting with the Member, his OECTA representative, and Superintendent Prajza. During the post-observation meeting, Principal Bernard indicated that the Member showed a poor sense of commitment, he lacked follow-through, he blamed others for his own shortcomings, and he did not take enough initiative to improve his teaching performance (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18H).

Cross-examination of Ms. Bernard

In cross-examination, Principal Bernard acknowledged that, prior to the 2007-2008 academic year, she had only conducted one NTIP appraisal.

Principal Bernard also acknowledged that she was aware that an Improvement Plan had been prepared to assist the Member with his final NTIP appraisal, and that her role as principal involved working with the Member to help him achieve satisfactory standards, based on the Improvement Plan. Nonetheless, Principal Bernard conceded that she never asked anyone for a copy of it before September 17, 2007 (see Exhibit 15), and she only first saw the Member’s Improvement Plan on October 5, 2007 (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 2).

Principal Bernard also acknowledged that she did not provide the Member with the Strategy Form, the Evidence Log, or any other NTIP related materials when she met with him during the summer of 2007. She only provided the Member with these documents on October 10, 2007.

Principal Bernard agreed with Member’s Counsel that the NTIP allowed teachers to make mistakes and to learn and grow from them. She further agreed that not every mistake was to form part of the teacher’s evaluation. Principal Bernard, however, was unable to explain where she drew the line between teacher’s conduct that formed part of the NTIP evaluation and conduct that was simply part of the learning process.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s testimony that the Member did not use the opportunity to begin setting up his classroom on August 22, 2007, she acknowledged that she did not rely on this factor in concluding that the Member had a poor sense of commitment (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18H). Principal Bernard further acknowledged that it was possible that the Member had come to set up his classroom prior to August 30, 2007, but that she had simply not seen him.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s testimony that the Member arrived late for school on the first day of classes, and several times thereafter, the principal accepted the Member’s explanation that he could not find a parking spot on the first day. She also acknowledged that if the Member had been entering the school through the staff room entrance, she would not have known what time he had arrived. Similarly, if the Member had arrived on time and then gone back to his car to collect teaching materials, the principal would not have known. Principal Bernard also could not disagree that the Member’s first period was a prep period from September to December 2007.

Furthermore, Principal Bernard acknowledged that, after having sent the Member an e-mail addressing his punctuality on October 18, 2007, she did not record a single other instance in which the Member arrived late. Nevertheless, Principal Bernard relied on the Member’s tardiness in concluding that he needed further development in the NTIP competency relating to the teacher’s knowledge of his subject matter and education-related legislation.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s testimony that, by October 15, 2007, the Member had still not submitted his inventory, his register, or his supply teacher handbook, Principal Bernard agreed that there was no record of her ever asking the Member for these documents before October 15, 2007. She also conceded that there was no indication that the Member did not provide the requested materials by October 17, 2007, which was the deadline that she had imposed. Nevertheless, Principal Bernard testified that the Member’s delay in submitting these documents might have factored into her conclusion that his overall teaching performance was unsatisfactory (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5).

With regard to the postponement of the Member’s third NTIP appraisal, initially scheduled for October 15, 2007, Principal Bernard agreed that the Member had not initiated and was not responsible for these delays (see Exhibit 14 at Tabs 2 and 18F), aside from the fact that he reasonably requested that the evaluation not be held while he was completing his Report Cards.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s evidence about the Member’s inconsistent use of student agendas, the principal acknowledged that the Member and Mr. McCabe were part of a rotary system, in which each teacher taught certain courses to all grade 8 students. Although both teachers were responsible for ensuring that the students were making proper use of their agendas, Principal Bernard acknowledged that she never addressed this issue with Mr. McCabe.

With regard to the format of the Member’s lesson plans, Principal Bernard acknowledged that, following her meetings with the Member on October 4, October 26, and November 2, 2007, the Member addressed her concerns that his lesson plans had not clearly stated the lesson objectives, instruction and activity, and follow-up.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member’s Report Cards contained errors when he initially submitted them, the principal acknowledged that the Member corrected all of these errors and that the Report Cards were issued on time. Nonetheless, these errors factored into her overall conclusion that the Member’s teaching performance was unsatisfactory.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member arrived approximately 20 minutes late for his pre-observation meeting, the principal acknowledged that this factored into her conclusion that the Member had an overall poor sense of commitment, despite the fact that she had never asked the Member for an explanation.

With regard to the lesson plan that the Member had prepared for his NTIP appraisal (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18G), Principal Bernard acknowledged that the Member appeared to be well-prepared and that his lesson plan was good. She further acknowledged that she was not concerned that the plan made no allowance for the fact that students would need time to arrive from another classroom before the start of the lesson, and that the Member would have to complete three teacher-directed experiments in a ten minute period.

With regard to her concerns with the sequence in which the Member was teaching his Science curriculum, Principal Bernard acknowledged that she did not raise this issue with the Member when she reviewed his lesson plan during the pre-observation meeting, or when she had discussed his lesson plans with him at length in October and November 2007, as she should have. She also agreed that her view of the proper sequence differed from the grade 8 Science textbook and the Revised Ontario 2007 Elementary Science and Technology Curriculum.

With regard to her evidence that the Member did not submit his lesson plans as requested on the day of his classroom observation, that he did not return home to retrieve them as promised, and that he appeared to be avoiding her on the evening of December 18, 2007, Principal Bernard acknowledged that she never asked the Member for an explanation. She also agreed that the Member submitted his lesson plans the following morning.

With regard to her evidence that the Member’s lesson started 15 minutes late on the day of his classroom observation, Principal Bernard acknowledged that there were a number of factors that contributed to this delay, although she maintained that the Member was still responsible for starting his lesson on time.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s evidence that, during the classroom observation on December 18, 2007, the Member did not provide his students with any handouts (as he had said he would in his lesson plan) but rather wrote questions on the blackboard, the principal acknowledged that this was merely a difference of form as opposed to substance. Similarly, Principal Bernard acknowledged that the fact that the student groups were not formed exactly as the lesson plan had contemplated was also a difference of form as opposed to substance.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the class became very loud and that there were students who were off-task during the classroom observation, the principal acknowledged that most of the class was still working five minutes before the end of the period. She ultimately conceded that the only explanation for the students being engaged with five minutes remaining in the period was that the Member had brought them back on task.

With regard to her evidence that students did not understand the concepts that the Member was teaching during the classroom observation, Principal Bernard acknowledged that she did not have many examples to support this conclusion, and that the students’ difficulties may not have been the result of the Member’s lack of effort or ability.

Principal Bernard agreed that the Member had used his time in a focused and purposeful way during the classroom observation. She also agreed that he was barely able to get through his lessons as planned, due to time constraints. Principal Bernard further acknowledged that it would have slowed down the lesson even more if the Member stopped to attempt to elucidate further student responses to his questions.

Although Principal Bernard testified that the Member was not sufficiently challenging his students with grade-appropriate material, she acknowledged, during cross-examination, that only some of his student activities were not grade-appropriate. She subsequently agreed that Mr. McCabe had never complained that the Member’s activities were not grade-appropriate.

With regard to her criticism of the way in which the Member had calculated his students’ Report Card grades, Principal Bernard could not explain how the Member’s calculations differed from the accepted provincial guidelines.

With regard to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member did not use “a variety of techniques to report student progress and appropriate assessment and evaluation techniques” (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5), the principal conceded that she did not put the Member on notice that this was a concern before it appeared on his Summative Report.

Finally, Principal Bernard acknowledged that, on December 20, 2007, several of the Member’s colleagues expressed their concerns over the Member’s unsatisfactory NTIP appraisal. Mr. McCabe thought that she had made a mistake, and several other teachers disagreed with her conclusions and believed that the Member was a good teacher.

Testimony of Mr. Kevin Dolan

Mr. Dolan worked as a teacher for 18 years, a vice-principal for three years, and he has been a principal with the Board since September 2013. During the 2006-2007 academic year, Mr. Dolan was a Special Education resource teacher at School 1. Prior to the 2006-2007 academic year, Mr. Dolan had served as a mentor to approximately 15 teachers under the program that was in place before the NTIP. He testified that the transition to the NTIP had no effect on the way that he would mentor other teachers. He further testified that Principal Burmaster had sent him NTIP-related materials to help him prepare to be a mentor under the NTIP (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 21).

Mr. Dolan testified that, on October 2, 2006, he had met with Principal Burmaster, the Member, and Ms. Duke (the Member’s classroom management mentor) to discuss expectations under the NTIP. Even before this meeting, however, Mr. Dolan testified that he had offered support to the Member through informal discussions. Mr. Dolan also recalled attending an in-service about mentoring in the NTIP environment, which he believed occurred in November 2006.

Mr. Dolan testified that his role was to provide mentorship to the Member in the areas of curriculum, evaluation, and lesson planning, whereas Ms. Duke provided mentorship with respect to classroom management. Mr. Dolan testified that he and the Member got along well and that they would meet formally a few times each week.

Mr. Dolan further testified that he had become frustrated with the Member by December 2006; particularly given that the Member was not implementing his suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Dolan also testified that, in January 2007, he met with the Member to help him prepare for his first NTIP evaluation. They had discussed the Member’s lesson plan extensively and Mr. Dolan felt that the Member was prepared for a successful NTIP appraisal. Similarly, Mr. Dolan testified that he helped the Member prepare for his second NTIP evaluation in May 2007 and that he believed that the Member was prepared for a successful evaluation. Mr. Dolan was surprised by the outcome of the second NTIP appraisal, given the preparation that had been done.

Mr. Dolan also testified with regard to a farewell speech that he had delivered at the end of the 2006-2007 academic year (see Exhibit 16 at Tab 1). In his speech, Mr. Dolan stated that the Member had one of the most difficult classes in the school, and that he would have a positive impact on his students wherever he ended up teaching. During his testimony, Mr. Dolan qualified his speech by stating that he only meant to wish the Member well and that he was not commenting on the Member’s teaching performance.

Finally, Mr. Dolan testified that he met with the Member on a few occasions in August 2007 to help the Member set up his new class at School 2 for the start of the 2007-2008 academic year.

Cross-examination of Mr. Dolan

With regard to his testimony that Principal Burmaster had sent him NTIP-related materials to help him prepare to be a mentor in September 2006 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 21), Mr. Dolan acknowledged that he could not recall when he actually received the documents. He further agreed with Member’s Counsel that, in September 2006, he had not yet been formally identified as a mentor.

In relation to the training that he received as a mentor, Mr. Dolan acknowledged that, based on the records presented to him during cross-examination (see Exhibit 4B at Tabs 22 and 25, and Exhibit 3 at Tab 15A), it was possible that he did not attend the in-service training in November 2006 as he had previously testified.

With regard to his evidence that he was frustrated with the Member, Mr. Dolan acknowledged that he never got the sense that the Member did not want to follow his recommendations, but that the Member may have had trouble implementing his recommendations because he was overwhelmed by his demanding class.

Mr. Dolan also acknowledged that his primary involvement as the Member’s mentor occurred between the Member’s first and second NTIP appraisals in 2007, and not during the fall of 2006.

Testimony of Mr. Joseph Geiser

Mr. Geiser’s career in education included seven years working as a teacher, four years as a vice-principal, fifteen years as a principal and nine years as a supervisory officer. During the 2006-2007 academic year, Mr. Geiser was a superintendent for the Brampton West Family of Schools, which included School 1, and he became superintendent for Employee Relations in May 2007.

Superintendent Geiser testified that he had never conducted an NTIP appraisal during his time as a principal or a vice-principal, but he had carried out many teacher evaluations pre-NTIP. He further testified that the NTIP evaluations differed significantly from previous teacher performance appraisals. Mr. Geiser added that it was rare for principals to have serious concerns with a teacher’s performance, as occurred in the Member’s case. During his 19 years as a principal and a vice-principal, he only had similar concerns with two of his teachers.

Superintendent Geiser testified that, on February 2, 2007, he received an e-mail from Principal Burmaster with the Member’s NTIP appraisal and Enrichment Plan attached (see Exhibit 17 at Tab 7), which indicated that the Member had received a Development Needed rating. Superintendent Geiser noted that principals could not give teachers Unsatisfactory or Development Needed ratings without first consulting with Employee Relations.

Superintendent Geiser also testified that the Enrichment Plan appropriately addressed the deficiencies identified in the Member’s Summative Report and that it offered resources and support to the Member (see Exhibit 17 at Tab 5). Superintendent Geiser was disappointed that the Member had written the exact same comment with regard to each of the eight competencies addressed in the Enrichment Plan, because it seemed to indicate that the Member did not fully reflect upon or take to heart the Enrichment Plan’s objectives.

Superintendent Geiser also testified about a meeting that he attended with Principal Burmaster, the Member, and his OECTA representative on May 3, 2007, following the Member’s second NTIP appraisal (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15K). Superintendent Geiser explained that he told the Member to listen to his principal’s recommendations, to make use of the support offered to him, and to improve his practices, since his teaching position with the Board was in jeopardy.

Superintendent Geiser also explained the Member’s transfer from School 1 to School 2 due to the changes in enrolment at the schools and the Member’s low seniority at School 1.

According to Superintendent Geiser, once the Board received the Member’s third unsatisfactory NTIP appraisal from School 2, a thorough review was conducted. The Board was well-aware of the significance of this third NTIP appraisal.

Superintendent Geiser also testified with regard to a meeting that he had with the Member and his OECTA representative on January 7, 2008, in which Superintendent Geiser indicated to the Member that the Board would be recommending the termination of his employment. The Member’s union requested to have the Family of Schools superintendent, Mr. Prajza, conduct a fourth classroom observation and appraisal. According to Superintendent Geiser, the Member had already been given enough opportunities to prove his teaching abilities and the Board did not believe that extending him a fourth opportunity would change anything.

Cross-examination of Mr. Geiser

With regard to Superintendent Geiser’s testimony that he was disappointed that the Member had written the same comment with respect to each of the competencies in his Enrichment Plan, the superintendent acknowledged that he did not know whether OECTA had advised the Member to respond in the way that he did. He also never asked the Member for an explanation.

Superintendent Geiser also acknowledged that nobody at the Board involved in the review of the Member’s NTIP appraisals had directly observed the Member’s teaching performance in the period from September 2006 to December 2007. The Board relied entirely on the facts and conclusions reached by Principal Burmaster and Principal Bernard.

Testimony of Mr. George Prajza

Mr. Prajza’s career in education began in 1978. He spent approximately seven years as a teacher, a couple of years as a consultant with the Board, ten years as a vice-principal, ten years as a principal, and five years as superintendent of the Brampton West Family of Schools. Mr. Prajza became superintendent in May 2007 and he was responsible for both School 1 and School 2 through this position. During his 20 years as a principal and vice-principal, Mr. Prajza was involved in conducting approximately two to six performance appraisals per year.

Mr. Prajza testified that he replaced Mr. Geiser in May 2007 as superintendent of the Brampton West Family of Schools. He met the Member in September 2007 while he was visiting School 2 (see Exhibit 18 at Tab 1) and the Member thanked him for funding his summer institute courses, which were aimed at helping teachers improve their practice. Superintendent Prajza testified that the Board does not provide funding for every teacher to attend the summer institute; the funding is reserved for teachers most in need of support.

Superintendent Prajza testified that he had also spoken to Principal Bernard at School 2 to let her know that the Member was on “review status” and that she would have to work through the NTIP with him (see Exhibit 18 at Tab 2). His role as superintendent was to support the principal when needed, but it was not to conduct observations of the Member’s teaching performance.

Superintendent Prajza also testified that, throughout his entire career in education up until December 2007, he had never encountered or observed a teacher other than the Member who was unsuccessful in three performance appraisals. He was also not aware of any other teacher whose employment was terminated as a result of their substandard performance appraisals.

Superintendent Prajza further testified that he attended a meeting on January 7, 2008 with the Member, his OECTA representative, and other members of the Board (see Exhibit 18 at Tabs 4 and 8). At the meeting, OECTA requested that Superintendent Prajza conduct an additional, fourth classroom observation and appraisal of the Member’s teaching performance. Superintendent Prajza did not grant the request because it did not follow protocol and it would have set an unfavourable precedent within the Board.

Superintendent Prajza testified that he and Superintendent Geiser had recommended that the Member’s employment with the Board be terminated on January 7, 2008 (see Exhibit 18 at Tab 5), based on their review of the relevant documentation. This recommendation was based on the NTIP appraisals conducted by Principals Burmaster and Bernard, which he believed were fair. The superintendent indicated that the recommendation followed Board policy and protocol.

Cross-examination of Mr. Prajza

During cross-examination, Superintendent Prajza agreed that the Member acted promptly on the superintendent’s suggestion that he attend the summer institute courses. He also acknowledged that the Member attended and successfully completed the courses.

Superintendent Prajza acknowledged that there were some delays with respect to the implementation of the NTIP at School 2 during the 2007-2008 academic year. Although the Member’s third NTIP appraisal had been initially scheduled for October 15, 2007, Superintendent Prajza had still not had a full discussion with Principal Bernard about the Member’s “review status” by September 17, 2007 (see Exhibit 15). By October 5, 2007, Principal Bernard was still unfamiliar with the procedures to follow regarding the NTIP and she was unsure of how to proceed with the Member (see Exhibit 18 at Tab 2). Moreover, Principal Bernard had only been provided with the Member’s Improvement Plan as of October 5, 2007, which was ten days before the initially-scheduled, third NTIP appraisal (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 2).

Superintendent Prajza agreed that mentorship was a crucial part of the NTIP but that the Member had not been formally assigned a mentor as of October 12, 2007 (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18F). He further agreed that a mentor was only formally assigned to the Member at some point between October 12 and October 16, 2007 (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18C), despite the fact that the Member’s third NTIP appraisal had been initially scheduled for October 15, 2007.

The superintendent also did not take any steps to ensure that the Member’s mentor received the Improvement Plan, despite his understanding of the urgency of the Member’s situation. Superintendent Prajza agreed that the Member was a “teacher in crisis” (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 9), but the superintendent still took no steps to ensure that the Member’s mentor (Mr. McCabe) was trained to deal with a teacher in crisis.

Re-examination of Mr. Prajza

During re-examination, Superintendent Prajza confirmed that, despite the fact that the third NTIP appraisal was initially scheduled for October 15, 2007 and that there were timing issues with respect to putting in place formal mentorship by early October 2007 and with respect to Principal Bernard’s understanding of the NTIP procedures early in the 2007-2008 academic year, the third NTIP appraisal only actually took place in December 2007 (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5).

EVIDENCE OF THE MEMBER

In addition to the Member, who testified on his own behalf, Counsel for the Member called three witnesses who were each teachers at School 2 and colleagues of the Member at the time of the events in question. While the Committee carefully reviewed the Member’s extensive evidence which was heard over the course of several days, the following serves as a brief summary of the key portions of the evidence.

Testimony of the Member

Background

The Member graduated with a Bachelor of Music in Performance from the University of Toronto in 1997 and a Bachelor of Education from Nipissing University 2006. In July 2006, the Member received his basic qualifications in junior and intermediate divisions of music (instrumental).

While he was attending Teacher’s College at Nipissing in 2005-2006, the Member participated in several practice teaching assignments and was evaluated by way of Practice Teaching Reports (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 6), which were completed by three different teachers and an experienced faculty member. Each of the evaluators had observed the Member’s teaching performance and their evaluations were positive.

In July 2006, the Member was offered and he accepted a permanent track teaching position at School 1 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 2), beginning in September 2006. Prior to this assignment, the Member was employed as a casual occasional teacher with the Board in May 2006 and as a Choir director at a school within the Board’s jurisdiction from September 2003 to June 2005.

Information provided to the Member regarding the NTIP

The Member testified that, as part of his Bachelor of Education degree, he was provided with a brief overview of the NTIP, but because it was such a new program, the information was limited. In July 2006, he was notified by the General Manager of Human Resources that he would need to undergo two teacher performance appraisals within the first 12 months of his employment (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 3) and that he would need to complete additional requirements during his two-year probationary period (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 45).

In late July or early August 2006, Principal Burmaster invited the Member to attend an orientation for first year teachers. The Member also met with the principal on August 4, 2006 at School 1, where she gave him an individualized orientation. The Member testified that, after the meeting, he took his Math, History, Geography, and Religion textbooks home with him so that he could learn the material and prepare his lessons. The Member added that Principal Burmaster did not discuss any aspect of the NTIP with him on August 4, 2006 or at any point before the start of the 2006-2007 academic year.

The Member further testified that he had attended summer institute courses offered by the Board in August 2006, an in-service for new teachers on September 20, 2006, and a workshop provided by OECTA on October 16, 2006 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 19). At no point during any of these sessions did the Member receive any information about the NTIP or the appraisal process, beyond a brief overview of the NTIP and a general explanation of the purpose of the program. No NTIP-related documents were provided to the Member at any of these training sessions.

According to the Member, the first time that he was provided with any NTIP-related material, or instructions on how to use them, was halfway through his first year of employment with the Board, on January 8, 2007 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 20).

The Member’s difficult class at School 1

The Member testified that, of the 24 students in his class at School 1 during the 2006-2007 academic year, two students had learning difficulties (they had Individualized Education Programs and were identified) and five students had behavioural problems (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15I). Compared to the three other classes that he worked with during the 2006-2007 academic year, the Member testified that his grade 8 class was far more challenging. His students did not listen to instructions well, they generally did not work well independently, and it took a great deal of effort to get them to work cooperatively.

The Member’s mentors at School 1

The Member testified that both Ms. Duke and Mr. Dolan mentored him during the 2006-2007 academic year, although neither of them had established contact with him at the beginning of the 2006-2007 academic year and neither had assisted him with the planning of his first day, first week, or first month as a new teacher, as was recommended in the NTIP Resource Handbook for Mentors (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 13). According to the Member, Ms. Duke was his only mentor as of October 2006, and Mr. Dolan became his second mentor in November 2006. The Member disagreed with Mr. Dolan’s evidence that he had informally mentored the Member in September 2006. The Member also noted that neither mentor had attended an NTIP-related in-service with him at any point during the 2006-2007 academic year, as Principal Burmaster had testified.

According to the Member, the mentorship that he received was quite infrequent. He received no formal mentorship from Mr. Dolan until January 2007, and their informal meetings prior to that were sporadic. Between January and May 2007, the Member met with Mr. Dolan on a weekly basis. The Member testified that he met with Ms. Duke on an informal basis between October and December 2006, but that he did not have regular, weekly meetings with her at that time.

The Member acknowledged that Principal Burmaster had offered him up to five release days to work with his mentors or to attend classroom management in-services (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 22); however, he explained that he did not use these release days because it took too much effort to prepare for a supply teacher and to catch up on missed time with his class.

The Member also disagreed with Principal Burmaster and Mr. Dolan’s assertions that he did not implement their suggestions for improvement, and he gave several examples to support his testimony. For instance, the Member noted that he made his students bring home their tests for their parents to sign, following Mr. Dolan’s recommendation. He also modified his day plans once Ms. Duke provided him with a model that he could follow in mid-October 2006. The Member claimed not to have received many suggestions for improvement from his mentors.

First NTIP appraisal and the Member’s subsequent response

The Member responded to Principal Burmaster’s evidence that he was unprepared for his classroom observation during the first week back from Christmas break. According to the Member, he was prepared to teach a Math lesson for his classroom observation, but Principal Burmaster told him to teach a Language Arts lesson instead, at his pre-observation meeting the week before his evaluation.

The Member also testified that he disagreed with Principal Burmaster’s overall conclusion on his first NTIP appraisal and some of her findings that led to the Development Needed rating that he received. He responded to the principal’s conclusions with specific comments about her observations (see Exhibit 12A). Generally, the Member believed that Principal Burmaster focused on the negative and overlooked the positive aspects of his lessons. For instance, the first Summative Report (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 5) did not indicate that the Member had used his lunch and recess breaks to help students, and it ignored his use of technology in the classroom, which the Member saw as a benefit to his students.

The Member also testified with respect to his repeated comment in the Enrichment Plan that “I have made every effort to be a good and effective teacher, always with my students’ best interest in mind. I will strive to follow any fully detailed enrichment plan the principal prescribes for me” (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 5). He disagreed with Superintendent Geiser’s belief that this comment indicated that he had not taken his Enrichment Plan to heart. The Member explained that he wrote this comment in part based on the advice of OECTA, but that he sincerely meant what was written.

In addition, the Member testified that he implemented several of the suggestions made by Principal Burmaster and his mentors. For instance, he tidied up his classroom, he bought a computer for his class so that he could engage his level 4 students when the class was not challenging enough, he put up anchor charts in his classroom and decorated with students’ work, and he changed the seating plan in his class based on his mentors’ recommendations. He also complied with Principal Burmaster’s February 23, 2007 request to provide her with his plans on a weekly basis (see Exhibit 4B at Tabs 31 and 46), and he addressed the homework issues in his class and improved his communication with parents by the end of March 2007.

The Member also testified with respect to the issue of his delayed submission of student assessments. He acknowledged that these were initially requested on January 17, 2007, then again on February 26, 2007, and a third time on March 7, 2007. The Member explained that he had created a very complicated Excel spreadsheet with his student assessments and that Principal Burmaster told him to reformat it, which was very time-consuming. By March 20, 2007, he had provided Principal Burmaster with his History and Art assessments (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 37), and by April 2, 2007, he had provided the principal with the rest of his assessments.

Similarly, the Member testified that he was late submitting his daybook because Principal Burmaster had asked him to change the format of his daybook twice. This reformatting to his principal’s specifications was a time-consuming task.

Second NTIP appraisal and the Member’s subsequent response

The Member testified that he prepared a response to the second NTIP appraisal (see Exhibit 12B), and that he disagreed with his principal’s conclusions. In the Member’s opinion, the second classroom observation went well and there were a number of positives that the principal did not take into consideration in her assessment. Although the Member acknowledged that he had some classroom management issues during his second NTIP appraisal, he was disappointed that Principal Burmaster did not consider that he was able to regain control of his class.

The Member also testified with respect to the Improvement Plan that followed his second NTIP appraisal (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 11). He indicated that he did not make any comments or suggestions with respect to this Improvement Plan because he felt that his comments were not being taken into consideration. The Member also noted that he did not provide a copy of the Improvement Plan to Principal Bernard at School 2 because he believed that she would have received it from either Principal Burmaster or from the Board.

The Member’s transfer from School 1 to School 2

The Member testified that, before his eventual transfer to School 2, he wanted to return to School 1 despite having received two unsuccessful appraisals from Principal Burmaster. He believed that he would have had a better chance of succeeding on his third NTIP appraisal at School 1 once he had a better sense of Principal Burmaster’s expectations.

In July 2007, the Member was made aware of his assignment to School 2 for the 2007-2008 academic year. During the summer of 2007, the Member attended two courses at Superintendent Prajza’s recommendation (see Exhibits 19A and 19B) and successfully completed them (see Exhibit 16 at Tab 2). The Member noted that the “Eight is Great” course was very beneficial to him. He indicated that, with respect to checking homework, the course instructors recommended that he not check every student’s homework every day, but that he instead check the homework of some students selected at random.

The Member testified that he visited School 2 in August 2007, for approximately an hour and a half. During this visit, he met with Principal Bernard and was given an orientation and a tour of the facilities. He also discussed with the principal his placement as a grade 8 teacher and the rotary system that was in place at School 2. At the end of his visit, he took home a handful of resource books or teaching manuals, including the Math, Science, and Religion manuals. He explained how it was possible that Principal Bernard did not see him leaving with these materials, since he brought them to his car before returning to thank her for her time.

The Member also responded to Principal Bernard’s evidence that he only started to set up his classroom on August 30, 2007 despite having been given access the week before. According to the Member, he was at School 2 on four of the five days during the week before the start of the 2007-2008 academic year, to prepare his classroom. He added that his wife and daughter had helped him to set up his classroom, as had Mr. Dolan.

The Member’s mentor at School 2

The Member testified that Mr. McCabe was his mentor at School 2 and that they had a very good rapport. According to the Member, Mr. McCabe was formally assigned to him on October 16, 2007 (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18C), but he worked closely with the Member right from the start of the academic year. The Member testified that the feedback that he received from his mentor was positive.

The Member further testified that he and Mr. McCabe worked on a rotary system. This system allowed Mr. McCabe to observe the Member’s teaching performance at least once every week, and it similarly allowed the Member to watch his mentor teach.

The 2007-2008 academic year

The Member responded to Principal Bernard’s evidence that he was late for school on the first day of classes, and several times thereafter. The Member explained that he was late on the first day of school because the parking lot was full, which he had not anticipated. The Member also acknowledged that he was slightly late on October 18, 2007, because he had to tend to his daughter who was sick that morning. He denied having arrived late on any other occasion and noted that he often entered the school through the staff room entrance, which was not visible from Principal Bernard’s office. He further indicated that he had a prep period at the start of the school day, while his students were in French class with another teacher.

The Member also responded to Principal Bernard’s evidence that he was late handing in his register, his inventory, and his supply teacher handbook. The Member explained that he handed in his register by the October 17, 2007 deadline that was imposed by the principal. Similarly, he had complied with the submission deadlines for his supply teacher handbook and his inventory.

The Member also testified with respect to the October 11, 2007 informal classroom observation. He disagreed with Principal Bernard’s evidence that he was unprepared for this observation. The Member explained that he had to teach a review class on October 11, 2007, because an assembly interfered with his Math period on October 9, 2007 and because he and Mr. McCabe taught the grade 8 students about the provincial elections on October 10, 2007, which also interfered with his Math class.

The Member also testified with respect to his lesson plans and Principal Bernard’s discussions with him on October 26, 2007 and November 2, 2007 (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18C) regarding the format of his lesson plans (see Exhibit 16 at Tab 11). The Member indicated that, following their discussion on November 2, 2007, he ensured that he was clearly stating the lesson objectives, instruction and activity, and follow-up on his lesson plans, as Principal Bernard had requested.

The Member further testified with respect to the issue of whether his lessons were grade-appropriate. The Member disagreed with Principal Bernard’s assessment that his activities were not grade-appropriate, and he testified that all of his lessons in Science, Math, and Religion (see Exhibit 16 at Tabs 13, 14, and 15) were grade-appropriate and were based on his textbooks.

In addition, the Member responded to Principal Bernard’s concerns regarding the sequence of his Science lessons. He testified that the textbook units in his Science class were not self-contained and that there was no particular order that needed to be followed. According to the Member, there was nothing pedagogically incoherent about the sequence in which he taught his classes.

The Member also testified with respect to the issue of checking homework. When he told Principal Bernard that he did not have enough time to check every student’s homework on a daily basis, she advised him to check with Mr. McCabe to see what his practice was. According to the Member, Mr. McCabe’s practice was not to check everyone’s homework every day.

With respect to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member was behind schedule in delivering his Math curriculum, the Member testified that he was confident that he was on schedule to complete the entire Math curriculum by the end of the academic year. He was on pace with his long-range plans.

Third NTIP appraisal

The Member’s pre-observation meeting was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2007, but he acknowledged that he had arrived late to this meeting because he had to dismiss his class at 3:00 p.m. and because he had to accompany a student who was on crutches out of the school. He noted that he was never asked for an explanation for his tardiness.

With respect to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member came to the pre-observation meeting unprepared, despite having been told in advance to be prepared with certain information, the Member testified that he was simply flustered during the meeting. Although he knew the composition of his class from memory, he drew a blank at the time because he was nervous. The Member also testified that he had come prepared to the pre-observation meeting with his lesson plans and his activities for the classroom observation (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18G). The Member recalled that Principal Bernard had commented that his lesson was very ambitious, but she never told him that there was not enough time to cover everything that he had planned.

With respect to the classroom observation that took place on December 18, 2007, the Member testified that, by the time Principal Bernard entered the classroom, it was set up as outlined in the lesson plan (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18G). The Member acknowledged that he wrote questions on the blackboard because he had forgotten to bring handouts for his class, but he noted that he had written the questions on the blackboard before the start of his class.

The Member also provided an explanation for why his lesson began at 1:35 p.m., which is 15 minutes after it was supposed to start. Essentially, between 1:20 p.m. and 1:35 p.m., the Member had to wait for his students to come back into the school from outside, to change out of their winter clothes, and to gather their materials and get organized for their next class. He then had to wait for Mr. McCabe’s students, who he was teaching that period, to arrive at his classroom.

The Member responded to Principal Bernard’s testimony that he did not have his daily plans ready for her on the day of the classroom observation, by explaining that he had forgotten them at home and that he did not have the opportunity to pick them up during the afternoon because he had last-minute preparations to do for a holiday Choir event that evening. He further testified that he had provided his daily plans to the principal the following morning, on December 19, 2007.

With respect to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member did not explain to his class how they were going to be evaluated on their presentations during the classroom observation, the Member testified that he had previously explained to his class how they would be graded on all classroom presentations. In addition, the Member testified that his students had completed handouts at the end of the class, which formed part of their evaluation. Principal Bernard, however, never asked to see these handouts.

With respect to Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member did not employ effective questioning techniques that encouraged higher order thinking (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5), the Member explained that he had asked his students several synthesis-type questions during the classroom observation, to encourage higher order thinking. He further noted that, due to time constraints, he could not dwell on every question during the lesson.

Moreover, with respect to Principal Bernard’s evidence that she was concerned that student participation declined over the course of the Member’s lesson (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5), the Member testified that nearly everyone in his class had participated on the day of the classroom observation. He strongly disagreed with the principal’s conclusion in this regard.

Finally, the Member testified that, contrary to Principal Bernard’s evidence, he did adjust his lessons to address the different learning styles and abilities of his students. The Member provided an example in which he had students take apart dollar store toys (like helicopters that contained mechanical gears) in order to explore the use of simple machines (see Exhibits 13A and 13B). This was one of several instances in which the Member claims to have provided his students with engaging lessons that used a variety of teaching methods to address his students’ different learning styles.

Cross-examination of the Member

During cross-examination, College Counsel took the Member through his Practice Teaching Reports from Nipissing University (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 6) and the Member confirmed that, during the 2005-2006 academic year, he had been evaluated on a number of factors related to teaching performance which included the following: commitment to pupils and pupil learning; creating opportunities for problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking; making adjustments to meet students’ needs; commitment to professional growth and ongoing professional learning; understanding curriculum content; and making plans and developing teaching and learning strategies. The Member acknowledged that he knew that all of these requirements were expected of teachers.

The Member also agreed that he had received a memorandum from the Board dated July 26, 2006 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 3), which informed him that the NTIP existed, that he was subject to it as a new teacher, that he would be assessed twice during the first 12 months of his employment, and that the principal would inform him of the program’s details. The Member acknowledged that he realized how important NTIP appraisals were, even at that time.

With respect to his testimony that he had never been provided with substantial information about the NTIP or the appraisal process during the workshops and in-services that he attended in August, September and October 2006, the Member acknowledged that he never asked Principal Burmaster or his mentors about the appraisal process and he never sought additional information from OECTA or anyone else.

With respect to the support that he received as a new teacher, the Member acknowledged that he had received some support from the Board, OECTA, Principal Burmaster, his mentors, and more informally from some of his more experienced colleagues, both before and after his NTIP appraisals at School 1 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15K).

With respect to the timing of the appointment of the Member’s mentors at School 1, College Counsel put it to the Member that both Mr. Dolan and Ms. Duke had been assigned to the Member by October 2, 2006. The Member, however, disagreed and maintained that his recollection should be preferred over Principal Burmaster’s written evidence which stated otherwise (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14).

With respect to the NTIP-related material that the Member received from Principal Burmaster on January 8, 2007, prior to his first NTIP appraisal, the Member agreed that he had received and read the Individual NTIP Strategy Form and the Evidence Log (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15G), but he had not met with his mentors to complete these documents before his first NTIP appraisal.

The Member acknowledged, during cross-examination, that he was aware that the NTIP appraisal was not simply a snapshot based on a one-hour observation, but that it was based on the eight competencies and 45 “look-fors” assessed during his classroom observation in addition to information gathered outside of the classroom observation.

The Member, however, disagreed that Principal Burmaster had thoroughly set out her expectations at the pre-observation meeting. Although the Member acknowledged that he had received a number of NTIP-related documents on January 8, 2007 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 20), which indicated what the evaluation criteria were for the NTIP appraisal, he maintained that the way in which the principal would apply the evaluation criteria was not made clear before the classroom observation. According to the Member, Principal Burmaster only made him aware of her expectations on January 30, 2007 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 27), after his first NTIP appraisal.

College Counsel also cross-examined the Member with respect to his testimony that he believed that Principal Burmaster focused only on the negative aspects of his teaching performance and overlooked the positives, during the NTIP appraisals. While he reluctantly acknowledged that there may have been a couple of distinct instances where Principal Burmaster recognized the positive aspects of his teaching performance, the Member maintained that the principal consistently overlooked these positive aspects.

With respect to his Enrichment Plan following his first NTIP appraisal (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 5), the Member agreed with College Counsel that the plan was fully detailed and that he was satisfied with its contents at the time. The Member acknowledged that it was only with hindsight that he became concerned that the Enrichment Plan did not set out how Principal Burmaster was going to monitor the improvements in his teaching performance.

The Member was also cross-examined with respect to the support that Principal Burmaster provided to him. He agreed that Principal Burmaster advised him that she was open and available to help him if needed (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15K), and that this was indicative of a supportive principal.

With respect to Principal Burmaster’s requests that the Member submit his assessments for all of his classes, the Member agreed that she had reminded him to submit them four times and he ultimately missed the March 9, 2007 submission deadline that she imposed (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 37). The Member maintained, however, that the delay in submitting his assessments occurred because he had recorded them in a complicated Excel document, which he had to reformat at his principal’s request. This reformatting took a significant amount of time.

The Member was also cross-examined with respect to his classroom rules and behaviour expectations. Although he was told to post rules in his classroom on January 30, 2007, during his post-observation meeting following his first NTIP appraisal, the Member acknowledged that he only posted the rules in late March 2007, which was seven weeks after the request was made.

With respect to the issue that some of the Member’s students were still not completing their homework by March 26, 2007, the Member acknowledged that this remained an issue for two of his students.

The Member was also cross-examined with respect to his testimony that Principal Burmaster offered him five release days to work with his mentors or to attend classroom management in-services (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 22) but that he did not utilize these days. The Member acknowledged that these in-services could have helped him with his teaching performance; however, he explained that he had taken the initiative to attend three in-services that took place outside of school hours, because he found it too difficult to miss class time and to catch up.

With respect to the informal observation that Principal Bernard conducted on October 11, 2007, the Member maintained that he had provided a reasonable explanation for why he was teaching a review class on that day. The Member acknowledged, however, that he never suggested to Principal Bernard that the informal observation should be postponed to a day when he was teaching a new lesson.

With respect to Principal Bernard’s concern that he was behind schedule in delivering his Math curriculum, the Member acknowledged that he had not explained to the principal that he was still on track based on his long-range plans. The Member conceded that he should have provided this explanation to the principal.

The Member was also cross-examined with respect to his use of NTIP-related materials prior to his third NTIP appraisal. The Member acknowledged that, in the lead-up to his third NTIP appraisal, he focused primarily on his lesson plans and he did not make extensive use of the NTIP-related documents. He further acknowledged that, although he understood that his third NTIP appraisal was critical, he still did not use all of the resources provided to him.

Finally, with respect to the Member’s ambitious lesson plan for his third NTIP appraisal, although the Member maintained that his lesson plan theoretically could have been completed in one period, he acknowledged that he had not taken into consideration the time that it would take for his students to arrive to his class before the lesson could begin.

Re-examination of the Member

During re-examination, the Member provided further explanation with respect to his testimony that, with hindsight, he was concerned that his first Enrichment Plan did not set out how Principal Burmaster was going to monitor the improvements in his teaching performance. The Member indicated that he had been making many improvements and that he was following the Enrichment Plan, but he felt that Principal Burmaster had no idea that he was improving on a daily basis.

With respect to the Member’s evidence that the principal’s offer of support in a letter following the February 23, 2007 meeting (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 15K) was indicative of a supportive principal, the Member clarified during re-examination that, although he felt that this offer was supportive, he did not generally believe that Principal Burmaster was a supportive principal.

The Member also explained why it took him until March 2007 to post his classroom rules, when he was told to do so at his post-observation meeting on January 30, 2007. The Member explained that, although it does not take long to physically prepare and post classroom rules, it took him more than a month to do so because he had been discussing how he should approach this with his mentor, Mr. Dolan. The Member noted that it was not until March 2007 that Mr. Dolan sent him an e-mail suggesting how he should approach this issue with his class.

The Member also provided a further explanation with respect to the issue that some of his students were still not completing their homework by March 26, 2007, but that he was only able to contact the parents of four out of six of these students. The Member indicated that he had attempted to call all of the parents by telephone, but he was unable to reach two of the students’ parents when he had tried to contact them.

Testimony of Mr. Frank Miceli

Mr. Miceli testified that he had started working as an employee of the Board in September 1988. He worked as a Special Education resource teacher for 25 years and retired in February 2013. During the 2007-2008 academic year, he taught at School 2 where he was appointed to the position of “teacher in charge”, which meant that he would fill in for the principal or the vice-principal when both were absent from school.

Mr. Miceli testified that he worked with approximately seven students from the Member’s grade 8 class during the Fall 2007 semester. This gave him the opportunity to observe the Member’s teaching performance on several occasions. Mr. Miceli noted that he did not have any concerns with the Member’s teaching skills or with his knowledge of the curriculum. To the contrary, Mr. Miceli indicated that he was impressed with the Member’s skill-set, and particularly with his use of technology, which was ahead of its time.

Mr. Miceli further testified that once he became aware that the Member had received an unsatisfactory teacher performance appraisal from Principal Bernard, he was surprised, confused and angry, and raised his concerns in a meeting with the principal. He indicated that, although he respected Principal Bernard and had a good, professional relationship with her, he strongly disagreed with her appraisal of the Member. Consequently, Mr. Miceli wrote a letter of support dated January 2008 (see Exhibit 21) to assist the Member. He gave this letter to the Member.

Cross-examination of Mr. Miceli

During cross-examination, Mr. Miceli acknowledged that he knew that the Member’s two performance appraisals at School 1 were not satisfactory. He also acknowledged that his observations of the Member’s teaching performance were limited to the Fall 2007 semester, whereas the Committee’s task is to evaluate the Member’s teaching performance over a significantly longer period of time. Mr. Miceli also agreed that, while he had the opportunity to observe the Member’s teaching performance in class, Mr. Miceli’s class time was fairly limited because he would often remove students from the classroom when he worked with them.

Mr. Miceli acknowledged that his role focused more on student performance than teacher performance. He had never carried out a teacher performance appraisal. He also acknowledged that he did not know exactly how Principal Bernard arrived at her conclusions in her appraisal of the Member. Mr. Miceli agreed that he was not present during the Member’s pre-observation, observation, or post-observation; accordingly, he was not privy to the information that Principal Bernard relied upon in arriving at her conclusions.

Re-examination of Mr. Miceli

During re-examination, Mr. Miceli testified that, although his job was focused on student performance and not teacher performance, he still had the opportunity to work with teachers and to observe their classes. He worked with the Member during the Fall 2007 semester and was able to observe his teaching performance.

Testimony of Mr. Daniel McCabe

Mr. McCabe testified that he had started working as an employee of the Board in September 1999. During the 2007-2008 academic year, he taught at School 2 and he still teaches at the intermediate level at the school. He testified that he was assigned to teach grade 8 during the 2007-2008 academic year and that he taught in Room 205, which was adjacent to the Member’s classroom (Room 204).

Mr. McCabe testified that the noise level was not unusually loud in the Member’s classroom during the Fall 2007 semester, and he added that he would have been able to hear into the other classroom if both his door and the Member’s door were open.

Mr. McCabe further testified that the principal had established a rotary system in 2007-2008, whereby he taught Language, History, and Geography to both grade 8 classes, and the Member taught Math and Science to both classes. They each taught the remaining subjects to their own class groups.

Mr. McCabe also testified that Principal Bernard had appointed him to be the Member’s mentor in the fall of 2007. He noted that he did not have any formal discussions with the principal regarding expectations of mentors under the NTIP, but he did go to an in-service for training.

Mr. McCabe further testified that the Member had informed him that he was on “review status” during the Fall 2007 semester. According to Mr. McCabe, Principal Bernard had not advised him that the Member was having difficulty in any specific area, she had not asked him to focus his mentorship on any particular set of skills, and Mr. McCabe was not aware of any difficulties with regard to the Member’s teaching performance.

Mr. McCabe testified that he had the opportunity to observe the Member teaching on at least three occasions. Based on his observations, Mr. McCabe did not have any concerns with respect to the Member’s teaching performance or with the quality of his lesson plans.

Mr. McCabe also discussed homework review during his testimony. He indicated that it was his practice to only review the work of students who were having difficulty or whose parents had signaled concerns. He noted that it was not feasible to check every student’s homework on a daily basis because it was too time consuming.

Mr. McCabe further testified that, after the Member informed him of his unsatisfactory rating on his third NTIP appraisal, Mr. McCabe met with Principal Bernard to express his concerns. Mr. McCabe told the principal that he disagreed with her assessment and that he believed that the Member was a competent teacher. Mr. McCabe also prepared a letter to this effect, at the Member’s request, to help him defend himself against the school administration (see Exhibit 22).

Cross-examination of Mr. McCabe

During cross-examination, Mr. McCabe acknowledged that he had only worked with the Member during the Fall 2007 semester, and that he could therefore only assist the Committee with the events that occurred during that time period. He further indicated that, although it was his first time as a mentor, he did not believe that his inexperience as a mentor had anything to do with Principal Bernard’s unsatisfactory evaluation of the Member’s teaching performance. Mr. McCabe simply disagreed with the conclusions drawn in Principal Bernard’s appraisal.

Mr. McCabe acknowledged that he has never been a principal. Accordingly, he has never carried out a performance appraisal, and he was not privy to any of the information or documentation that Principal Bernard had acquired during the appraisal process, when coming to her conclusions about the Member’s teaching performance.

Mr. McCabe was also cross-examined with respect to his statement of support for the Member, where he opined that the Member was a competent teacher based on everything that he had observed with respect to the Member’s teaching performance and on any reasonable standard. Mr. McCabe conceded that he was unaware of what the actual standards were that formed the basis of Principal Bernard’s appraisal.

Re-examination of Mr. McCabe

During re-examination, Mr. McCabe explained that the opportunity was available for him to observe the Member teaching at least four times per week, while his students were in French class. Mr. McCabe could not, however, recall how many of those opportunities he had actually used to observe the Member’s teaching performance.

Testimony of Ms. Natalie Gonsalves

Ms. Gonsalves, who is of no relation to the Member, testified that she had started working as an employee of the Board in September 2002. During the 2007-2008 academic year, she taught at School 2 and she still teaches grade 2 at the school.

Ms. Gonsalves testified that she co-directed the School’s Choir program with the Member during the Fall 2007 semester and that this was an extra-curricular activity for which both she and the Member had volunteered. There were approximately 30-35 students enrolled in Choir and they generally met to practice several times per week. Ms. Gonsalves explained that she was able to observe the Member’s teaching skills as he worked with their Choir students. In her view, teachers have the same responsibilities and use the same skills whether they are teaching students in a classroom or they are working with students in an extra-curricular activity, like Choir.

Ms. Gonsalves testified that she was upset and confused when she learned that the Member had received an unsatisfactory performance appraisal. As a result, she prepared a document that contained her observations of the Member’s teaching performance (see Exhibit 23). She believed that the Member was an excellent teacher who cared about his students.

Cross-examination of Ms. Gonsalves

During cross-examination, Ms. Gonsalves acknowledged that she had only worked with the Member during the Fall 2007 semester and that she could therefore only assist the Committee with the events that occurred during that time period.

She further acknowledged that she had never carried out teacher performance appraisals in her career. Although she could not understand how the Member was given an unsatisfactory performance appraisal, based on her observations, she conceded that she had never reviewed the Member’s lesson plans and that she was not privy to any of the information or documentation that Principal Bernard had acquired during the NTIP appraisal process.

Ms. Gonsalves also acknowledged that, although she was able to observe the Member’s teaching performance during Choir practices, her observations of his teaching performance were mostly limited to those interactions. She maintained, however, that she had sometimes observed him outside of Choir and that she believed that the teaching skills he demonstrated in Choir were transferable to the classroom context. The only competency that Ms. Gonsalves agreed that she could not assess at Choir was the Member’s knowledge of the grade 8 curriculum.

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel submitted that the College has the burden of proving that the Member is incompetent, on a balance of probabilities. According to College Counsel, Principal Burmaster and Principal Bernard’s evidence should be accepted. They testified about the support that was provided to the Member and the fact that he did not receive a satisfactory rating on any of his three NTIP appraisals, despite this support.

College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to accept the College’s clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. According to College Counsel, the Committee should be reluctant to second-guess the on-the-ground, contemporaneous observations of Principal Burmaster, Principal Bernard, and Superintendent Geiser, particularly given the detailed and well-documented nature of their evidence. College Counsel further submitted that Principal Burmaster was an experienced appraiser, even if she did not have experience with the NTIP in 2006-2007.

Information provided to the Member regarding the NTIP before his first appraisal

College Counsel submitted that the Member had received sufficient information regarding the NTIP before his first NTIP appraisal, and that the Committee should not accept the Member’s position that this appraisal was unfair because he did not understand the evaluation process. The Member was trained on a similar program while he was studying to become a teacher and he also received NTIP training during the summer and fall of 2006.

College Counsel urged the Committee to reject the Member’s self-serving and incredible evidence that the workshops and in-services that he attended in August, September and October 2006 did not deal with the NTIP in any detail. The OECTA training workshop included an hour that was allocated specifically to a discussion of the NTIP (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 19). Although the Member testified that he did not find the OECTA training very helpful, he took no initiative to learn more about the NTIP.

Similarly, College Counsel urged the Committee to reject the Member’s evidence that he did not receive NTIP-related materials until early January 2007. According to College Counsel, even if this were true, the Member made no effort to try to learn about the NTIP and he did not bother to make use of these materials prior to his NTIP evaluation, once he had received them.

First NTIP appraisal

College Counsel submitted that, prior to the Member’s first classroom observation, he attended a pre-observation meeting on January 10, 2007 with Principal Burmaster, during which she reviewed the evaluation process with the Member and gave him the opportunity to ask questions. College Counsel further submitted that it was noteworthy that the Member was unprepared for his classroom observation, given that he had attended the pre-observation meeting and that Principal Burmaster had postponed his classroom observation to give him more time to prepare.

According to College Counsel, Principal Burmaster ultimately concluded that the Member needed support in six of the eight competencies that she had assessed as part of his first NTIP appraisal (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 5). The Member’s first NTIP appraisal was approved by the Board, which demonstrates that the evaluation was not conducted in an unfair manner.

College Counsel further submitted that Principal Burmaster was completely surprised by the Member’s assertion at the post-observation meeting on January 30, 2007 that he did not know what was expected of him during the classroom observation. The Member had attended in-services and workshops related to the NTIP, and he and his mentors had received NTIP-related resources and materials.

With respect to the Member’s Enrichment Plan following his first NTIP appraisal, College Counsel submitted that the Member agreed with the contents of the plan, he accepted its recommendations, he agreed with the supports set out in the plan, and he added nothing to the Enrichment Plan. In response to the plan’s recommendations with respect to each competency, the Member wrote the same remark: “I have made every effort to be a good and effective teacher, always with my students’ best interest in mind. I will strive to follow any fully detailed enrichment plan the principal prescribes for me” (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 5). College Counsel submitted that it was surprising that the Member was not more engaged in the process.

College Counsel also submitted that the Member made no effort to improve his teaching performance. The Member acknowledged that he was provided with information about various in-service courses in November 2006, and that he was given five release days during which he could have attended these courses, but that he found it to be “more of a headache” to attend these training courses. Similarly, with respect to the NTIP-related documents received on January 8, 2007, the Member testified that these materials were an “added task” for him to review in addition to everything else that he was doing, and that he did not make much use of them. In addition, by January 2007, the Member’s mentors were frustrated with him because he was not following through on their recommendations for improvement.

Moreover, Principal Burmaster testified that, despite her numerous requests and reminders in January, February and March 2007, the Member was late submitting his student assessments. College Counsel submitted that this was not indicative of a teacher who had taken seriously the results of his first unsuccessful NTIP appraisal and who was showing signs of improvement.

College Counsel further submitted that it was remarkable that the Member selectively blamed others for his shortcomings and did not take responsibility for his actions and decisions. For instance, the Member attributed the fact that he was not provided with teaching manuals for all of his classes with his lack of success on his NTIP appraisals. The Member could have asked for these teaching manuals, but he claimed that he was unaware that they even existed. College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to reject this unbelievable excuse.

Second NTIP appraisal

College Counsel submitted that the Member was well aware of the process for his second NTIP appraisal since he had already been evaluated once before. The Member attended a pre-observation meeting on April 12, 2007 and he chose to teach a Math lesson during his classroom observation. The Member had prepared for this second classroom observation with the help of his mentor, Mr. Dolan.

On the Member’s second NTIP appraisal, Principal Burmaster noted a number of competencies that needed improvement, and found that the Member’s overall teaching performance was unsatisfactory (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 11). Among other issues, the principal was concerned with his inability to teach students with learning exceptionalities and his inability to motivate students to participate. College Counsel urged the Committee to accept the principal’s findings, which were approved by the Board.

College Counsel submitted that, on May 3, 2007, the Member met with Principal Burmaster, his OECTA representative, and Superintendent Geiser, as he had been placed on “review status”. College Counsel noted that the Member was angry with Principal Burmaster and blamed her for his unsuccessful NTIP appraisals. Superintendent Geiser, however, told the Member to take responsibility for his own failures and to point the finger back at himself.

College Counsel further submitted that the Member undermined his position that his first two NTIP appraisals were unfairly conducted, when he voluntary decided to remain at School 1 for the 2007-2008 academic year (although this did not ultimately materialize), despite having been given an opportunity for a fresh start at a different school.

College Counsel also submitted that the Board’s offer to pay for the Member to take courses during the summer of 2007 was a clear indication that the Member had been receiving support and that his teaching performance was not satisfactory. By offering summer institute courses to teachers in need, the Board was trying to help them improve their teaching competencies.

School 2 and the Member’s Third NTIP appraisal

College Counsel submitted that, like Principal Burmaster, Principal Bernard was very experienced at conducting teacher performance appraisals. Although the NTIP was relatively new in 2007-2008, Principal Bernard had previously evaluated another teacher under the program and she had extensive experience with other evaluation systems that required her to engage in a similar assessment process (see Exhibit 24).

College Counsel further submitted that, just like Principal Burmaster, Principal Bernard had extensive contemporaneous documentation of her encounters with the Member, which is indicative of an engaged and thoughtful principal who was taking her responsibilities seriously.

College Counsel urged the Committee to come to the same finding as the arbitrator in a related matter, who found it significant that the Member failed to provide a copy of his Improvement Plan to Principal Bernard or to his new mentor, Mr. McCabe (see Exhibit 24). According to College Counsel, the Member set himself up for failure at School 2 by not sharing his Improvement Plan with those who may have helped him improve his teaching performance.

College Counsel further submitted that the Member failed to take advantage of the support that was provided to him at School 2, and that his apathy and disorganization were indicative of his incompetence. For instance, Principal Bernard had agreed to conduct an informal observation of the Member’s teaching performance on October 11, 2007 and to provide him with feedback prior to his third NTIP appraisal, but the Member wasted this opportunity by holding a review class on that day.

College Counsel submitted that the Member attended his pre-observation meeting with Principal Bernard on December 14, 2007, but that he arrived 20 minutes late. According to College Counsel, the Member’s tardiness indicated that he was not taking the process seriously. College Counsel further submitted that the principal told the Member that the lesson that he had planned was overly ambitious. Nevertheless, the Member taught his lesson as planned, he could not get through the entire lesson, and he was unsuccessful on his final NTIP appraisal. College Counsel urged the Committee to make the same finding as the arbitrator, that the Member did not take his principal’s recommendations seriously enough (see Exhibit 24).

With respect to the classroom observation, College Counsel submitted that the Member performed very poorly and that the appraisal was fair. College Counsel noted that Principal Bernard decided to observe the Member teach a second lesson, to give him another chance to prove that his teaching performance was satisfactory. Despite this indulgence, the Member still failed to meet expectations with regard to the majority of the competencies evaluated (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5).

College Counsel submitted that the Committee ought to accept Principal Bernard’s evidence regarding the Member’s third NTIP appraisal given that she observed his teaching performance in person during the fall of 2007, she took contemporaneous notes of her observations, and the arbitrator found that her evidence was reliable and that her conclusions were correct (see Exhibit 24). College Counsel urged the Committee to make the same finding as the arbitrator – that the third NTIP appraisal was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or conducted in bad faith, and that the Member did not achieve a satisfactory rating.

College Counsel presented two cases to support its position that the Member should be found to be incompetent. Based on this jurisprudence, College Counsel submitted that the Committee did not need to go through every aspect of the Summative Reports in detail, but rather that the Committee could place weight on the evidence of the appraisers and rely on the relevant evidence as set out in the Summative Reports, when finding the Member to be incompetent.

Finally, College Counsel submitted that the Committee should find the Member to be both incompetent and guilty of professional misconduct. Although the vast majority of the evidence speaks to the Member’s incompetence, College Counsel submitted that the incompetence was synonymous with a failure to maintain the standards of the profession, and that the Member should accordingly be found guilty of professional misconduct as well.

SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBER’S COUNSEL

Member’s Counsel submitted that there was insufficient evidence to justify a finding of incompetence or professional misconduct in the Member’s case. The submissions of Counsel for the Member revolved around two primary themes. First, the Member was put in an impossible position at School 1 where he was unlikely to succeed, given the untimely support that he received and the extremely difficult class that he was assigned. Second, with respect to his unsatisfactory NTIP appraisal at School 2, Member’s Counsel submitted that Principal Bernard’s conclusions simply do not withstand scrutiny.

Member’s Counsel highlighted several provisions from the Education Act related to the NTIP and described a number of principles that flow from NTIP-related guidelines. For instance, new teachers have to teach and at the same time they have to learn to teach at a very rapid pace. The NTIP was accordingly designed to serve as on-the-job training for new teachers in a variety of practice areas. It is therefore expected that new teachers will make mistakes when learning to teach, and that not every mistake should be relied upon for evaluation purposes.

In addition, Member’s Counsel submitted that effective professional development must be manageable, relevant, timely and appropriate to the daily responsibilities of teachers. Timely support of new teachers is particularly important because, the longer deficiencies in one’s teaching practice persist, the more difficult they are to correct. To this end, principals are expected to establish contact with new teachers at the beginning of the academic year to assist new teachers in the planning of the first day, first week, and first month of the academic year.

The Member was put in an impossible position at School 1

Member’s Counsel submitted that the support that the Member received as part of the NTIP was certainly not timely. The first time that the Member received NTIP-related orientation materials was four months into the 2006-2007 academic year. The late delivery of these materials only gave the Member approximately one week to review the documents in preparation for his first NTIP evaluation. According to Member’s Counsel, the principal and the Board did not fulfill their mandatory obligations in a timely manner.

Member’s Counsel further submitted that the first teaching assignment is critical for new teachers and, to the extent possible, new teachers should not be assigned to difficult classes. Principal Burmaster agreed with this statement. Member’s Counsel further submitted that, despite this guideline, the Member was placed in one of the most difficult classes in the school; Mr. Dolan, gave evidence to this effect (see Exhibit 16 at Tab 1).

According to Member’s Counsel, Principal Burmaster and Principal Bernard’s experience as teacher performance appraisers prior to the introduction of the NTIP is not relevant. The NTIP includes mandatory requirements that had not existed before. Superintendent Geiser, a College witness, testified that the competencies evaluated under the NTIP were different from those evaluated under the former program. Furthermore, the fact that the Board spent considerable time and resources to educate their administrative staff about the NTIP suggests that it was different from the existing program.

Member’s Counsel also responded to the submission of College Counsel that the Member was familiar with the appraisal metrics in the NTIP, prior to his first NTIP appraisal, because he was trained on a similar program while he was in teacher’s college at Nipissing University. According to Counsel for the Member, it cannot be the case that the Member’s appraisals at Nipissing University were similar to the NTIP appraisals, because the Member was rated in either the highest or the second highest category on all of his appraisals in teacher’s college. Such a drastic decline from one year to the next would be extremely unlikely.

Member’s Counsel also responded to the submission of College Counsel that it was “incredible” for the Member to have testified that the workshops and in-services that he attended in August, September and October 2006 did not address the NTIP in any detail. According to Member’s Counsel, the NTIP was not even in effect during the summer of 2006 and it was only in mid-August 2006 that the NTIP-related materials were provided to school administration. It was therefore not incredible that the NTIP was not covered in any detail during these sessions, because the program was still brand new.

Counsel for the Member also disagreed with College Counsel’s submission that the Member did not make an effort to improve his teaching performance, despite the support that he had received. According to Member’s Counsel, the evidence simply does not support that conclusion. For instance, the Member testified that he regularly stayed at school late to keep up with his work and to ensure that he was delivering the best lessons possible. The Member also attended in-services after school, on his own time, on November 20 and December 7, 2006. In addition, he attended in-services to address his classroom management issues on February 22, 2007 and March 23, 2007. These initiatives demonstrate that the Member made an effort to improve.

With respect to the Member’s mentors, Counsel for the Member submitted that there were serious issues regarding the timeliness of their appointments and their training. Ms. Duke was appointed on October 2, 2006, which is one month into the 2006-2007 academic year. Ms. Duke was only trained with respect to the NTIP on November 30, 2006, which is three months into the academic year. Mr. Dolan, the Member’s other mentor, believed that he was also trained in November 2006, but he could not recall. He was certainly not trained before November 2006.

This timeline is important because the Member’s mentors were only trained – at the earliest – by the end of November 2006. That did not give the Member significant time with his mentors before his first NTIP appraisal was conducted. Furthermore, after the Member did not receive a satisfactory rating on his first NTIP appraisal in January 2007, Principal Burmaster directed the mentors not to participate further in the mentorship program. Although Mr. Dolan did ultimately provide the Member with effective mentorship between his first two NTIP appraisals, Counsel for the Member submitted that this mentorship was hardly timely.

Member’s Counsel therefore submitted that two fundamental aspects of the NTIP – orientation and mentorship – were not provided in a timely manner. This made the Member’s already difficult task of being a new teacher even more difficult. The Member was not incompetent; he was put in a position where it would be unreasonable to expect a new teacher to succeed.

Member’s Counsel also responded to College Counsel’s submission with respect to the Member’s decision to remain at School 1 when given the option to transfer to a different school during the summer of 2007. The Member decided to remain at School 1 because he felt that he had made significant improvements to his teaching performance and because he had acquired a better understanding of Principal Burmaster’s expectations. The Member believed that his chances of success on his third NTIP appraisal were greater at a school where he knew the principal’s expectations than in a completely new school.

The conclusions drawn in the Member’s NTIP appraisal at School 2 do not withstand scrutiny

Generally, Member’s Counsel submitted that the evidence simply did not support the conclusions that Principal Bernard drew with respect to the competencies assessed on the third NTIP appraisal. The principal’s conclusions were unreasonable.

With respect to the Member’s late arrival to his pre-observation meeting on December 14, 2007, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member was only partly responsible for this delay. Principal Bernard should have been aware that it would have been impossible for the Member to arrive at the meeting at 3:00 p.m. given his duties and responsibilities at dismissal. The Member was late for the meeting because he was escorting a student on crutches to the exit of the school and he had to wait with him until his father picked him up. When the Member arrived at the meeting, he apologized and told the principal why he was late.

Counsel for the Member also responded to College Counsel’s submission that the Member had been warned by Principal Bernard that the lesson he had planned for the classroom observation was overly ambitious. According to Member’s Counsel, there was no evidence that the Member was told that his lesson was too ambitious. In fact, during cross-examination, Principal Bernard stated that the Member’s lesson plan was “a good plan on paper”. Counsel for the Member urged the Committee not to make the same inference as the arbitrator in relation to this issue, since the evidence before the Committee was different from that before the arbitrator.

With respect to the Member’s classroom observation on December 18, 2007, Counsel for the Member submitted that it was not the Member’s fault that his lesson started late. The bell went off at 1:20 p.m. but, through a series of events beyond the Member’s control, Mr. McCabe’s students did not arrive to the Member’s classroom for their lesson until 1:34 p.m. The Member’s class started one minute later.

Counsel for the Member also went through each of the eight competencies that Principal Bernard assessed as part of the Member’s third NTIP appraisal. One of the principal’s repeated criticisms was that the Member did not use higher order questions during the lesson that she observed. According to Member’s Counsel, this was not necessarily the result of the Member’s lack of skill or ability but it was the result of a lack of time, given the circumstances of the lesson. Counsel for the Member urged the Committee not to rule out the explanation that time played a critical role in the Member’s third NTIP evaluation.

Member’s Counsel further submitted that a number of Principal Bernard’s concerns regarding the Member’s third NTIP appraisal related to her observation that students gradually lost interest in his lesson. Member’s Counsel submitted that this was not the case: 19 of 22 students responded to questions when asked, and most of the Member’s class was still engaged when he said that there were five minutes left in the period.

Finally, Counsel for the Member responded to College Counsel’s submission that the Committee should find the Member to be both incompetent and guilty of professional misconduct. Member’s Counsel submitted that there is no evidentiary basis to support a finding of professional misconduct. This case was entirely about the Member’s competency as a teacher, and it would therefore be inappropriate to twist and turn facts which essentially dealt with the skills and abilities of the Member into an issue of professional misconduct. According to Member’s Counsel, the College has not met its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member was incompetent.

REPLY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel first replied to the submission of Member’s Counsel that the Member did not receive timely support, which led to his unsuccessful NTIP evaluations. According to College Counsel, although there may be some force to this submission, the Member still received an unsatisfactory rating on the vast majority of the competencies assessed. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s apathy suggests that he would not have succeeded on his NTIP appraisals, regardless of the timeliness of the support that he received.

College Counsel further submitted, during reply, that the Committee should give some deference to the administrators who assessed the Member’s teaching performance. The principals were on the ground and witnessed the Member’s teaching performance first-hand. Accordingly, the Committee should be wary of overturning their findings.

With respect to the Member’s evidence that the NTIP had not been discussed in any detail during the in-services and workshops that the Member attended in August, September and October 2006, College Counsel submitted that, considering the course-providers and the nature of the training sessions, it is hard to accept the Member’s evidence. According to College Counsel, even if the Member’s evidence is uncontested with respect to this issue, the Committee still has to evaluate whether the evidence is credible or not.

With respect to the submission of Member’s Counsel that the mentors at School 1 did not receive formal training until the end of November 2006, College Counsel submitted that this was irrelevant. Ms. Duke, for instance, was the Member’s classroom management mentor and she was well-equipped to support the Member, even before her NTIP training. It is unlikely that her formal training would have significantly changed the way in which she mentored the Member.

College Counsel also replied to the submission of Member’s Counsel with respect to the Member’s decision to remain at School 1 rather than transferring to another school following his second unsatisfactory NTIP appraisal. According to College Counsel, the Member’s submission that he wanted to remain at School 1 because he finally understood Principal Burmaster’s expectations does not make sense. The Member was unsuccessful on both of his NTIP appraisals with Principal Burmaster and he disagreed with her findings. This does not suggest that he understood the principal’s expectations.

In addition, College Counsel replied to the submission of Member’s Counsel that time played a critical role in the Member’s third NTIP evaluation. Member’s Counsel had submitted that the Member was never warned that he would not have enough time to get through his entire lesson plan. According to College Counsel, however, the Member explicitly testified that Principal Bernard had told him that his lesson plan was very ambitious. He did not heed that warning.

Finally, College Counsel submitted that this case deals primarily with the Member’s incompetence, but if a finding of incompetence were made, that would imply that the Member has also breached the standards of the profession, which amounts to professional misconduct.

DECISION

Onus and Standard of Proof

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities. The standard must be met with clear, cogent and convincing evidence in order for the Committee to make a finding of professional misconduct and/or incompetence.

Decision

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, and the relevant jurisprudence, the Committee does not find Stanley Jerome Gonsalves guilty of professional misconduct or to be incompetent, as defined in sections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act. The College has not met its burden of proving the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing on a balance of probabilities.

REASONS FOR DECISION

In arriving at its decision, the Committee carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties, the submissions of Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, as well as all relevant jurisprudence. The Committee also assessed the credibility of the witnesses, by considering the following criteria established by the Divisional Court in Re Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community & Social Services (1985), 1985 CanLII 2053 (ON HCJ), 51 O.R. (2d) 302:

1. the appearance and demeanor of the witness;

2. the extent of the witness’s opportunity to observe the events in question;

3. the witness’s interest in the outcome of the hearing;

4. the probability or reasonability of the witness’s evidence;

5. the internal consistency of the witness’s evidence;

6. the external consistency of the witness’s evidence; and

7. the witness’s capacity to accurately recall the events in question.

The Committee’s task in rendering its decision is twofold: first, the Committee must determine whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities; second, if the Committee finds that the allegations were proven, the Committee must then determine whether the facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct and/or incompetence.

For the reasons that follow, the Committee finds that there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the Committee does not find the Member to be guilty of professional misconduct or to be incompetent, as defined in sections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act.

Credibility findings

The Committee carefully assessed witness credibility, particularly where contradictory evidence was presented by the parties which called upon the Committee to decide which party’s evidence to prefer. The Committee finds the Member’s evidence to be credible as well as that of his three colleagues, Mr. Miceli, Mr. McCabe, and Ms. Gonsalves. The Committee does not have any significant concerns with the credibility of Principal Burmaster. The Committee finds that Principal Bernard’s testimony was not persuasive.

The Committee finds that the Member presented his evidence in a forthright manner. He provided clear and honest responses to all issues relating to the allegations of incompetence. He accepted responsibility where necessary and he otherwise offered valid explanations for his shortcomings. He also responded respectfully and reasonably to all suggestions that he was an incompetent teacher. Furthermore, the Member’s testimony was both internally and externally consistent and it was supported by documentary evidence and corroborated by the testimony of his teaching colleagues.

Similarly, the Committee finds the evidence of Mr. Miceli, Mr. McCabe, and Ms. Gonsalves to be persuasive. The Member’s three colleagues presented their evidence in a straightforward and compelling manner. All three witnesses had the opportunity to work closely with the Member and to observe his teaching performance on a regular basis. None of the three witnesses had any significant interest in the outcome of the hearing, which contributed to the reliability of their evidence. Their evidence was consistent and reasonable, and the Committee finds no reason to doubt their abilities to accurately recall the events in question.

Principal Bernard’s evidence, however, was troubling for a number of reasons. First, there were external inconsistencies with the principal’s evidence. Principal Bernard’s evidence regarding the Member’s unsatisfactory teaching performance was in stark contrast to that of Mr. Miceli, Mr. McCabe, and Ms. Gonsalves, despite the fact that the principal had fewer opportunities to observe the Member’s teaching performance than his colleagues. While the Committee recognizes that the Member’s teaching colleagues were not directly responsible for evaluating his teaching performance, they were still experienced teachers who would have been able to identify incompetent teaching performance if they had been observing it on a regular basis.

Second, the Committee finds that there were internal inconsistencies with Principal Bernard’s evidence. Despite her conclusion in the third Summative Report that the Member’s teaching performance was unsatisfactory, her own log of the Member’s teaching performance (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18F) contained several notes that directly contradicted this opinion. Principal Bernard noted in her log that several teachers, and even parents, were surprised that the Member’s employment was being terminated, and voiced their concerns and displeasure with this decision.

Third, there were several examples of unsubstantiated comments contained in the Summative Report prepared by Principal Bernard. For instance, the principal noted that students did not understand what the Member was teaching during the classroom observation on December 18, 2007, but in cross-examination she acknowledged that this observation was based solely on the remarks of one student. Principal Bernard also found that the Member was not engaging his students during the classroom observation. The Committee, however, received clear, cogent and convincing evidence that led it to believe that the Member’s students were engaged during the classroom observation.

Fourth, Principal Bernard maintained that, although she had written that the Member showed continued growth in the second competency on his NTIP appraisal, she had made a mistake on the written document and actually meant to write that the Member would benefit from intensive support in this regard. Even in the face of concrete documentary evidence (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18H) that stated that the Member showed continued growth with respect to the second competency, Principal Bernard insisted that the Member did not meet her expectations. The Committee does not accept that the principal’s recollection, years after the fact, was more accurate than the documentary evidence presented.

The NTIP was a new program that was not fully understood

The Committee is concerned that the NTIP was brand new at the time of the events in question and that those responsible for implementing it were still in the process of learning its various intricacies. When the Member began his teaching career at School 1, the NTIP was in its infancy and the program was being introduced throughout Ontario. Administrators, new teachers, and mentors were required to attend workshops where they would gain an understanding and a competency in the implementation of the program. The general philosophy of NTIP was to prepare teachers for the rigors and expectations of teaching in Ontario.

It is the opinion of the Committee that, at the time of the Member’s first NTIP appraisal, none of the teachers, administrators, or mentors were sufficiently familiar with the NTIP, its objectives, and its underlying philosophy to properly conduct, assist, or be subject to an appraisal under this new program.

The Committee further recognizes that there is a steep learning curve for new teachers, who are expected to make mistakes and to learn from them. Accordingly, not every mistake made by a new teacher should be considered a demonstration of incompetence. The NTIP clearly contemplates that new teachers are confronted with two very complex and challenging tasks: they have to teach and at the same time they have to learn to teach at a very rapid pace (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 10). Thus, the NTIP was designed to serve as on-the-job training for new teachers in areas such as classroom management, effective parent communication skills, mentoring and orientation.

The Committee is troubled that, although Principal Burmaster and Principal Bernard both recognized that not all mistakes made by new teachers should be held against them for the purposes of their NTIP evaluations, neither could explain where they drew the line between acceptable mistakes and those that led to their conclusions that the Member’s teaching performance was not satisfactory. The Committee finds this distinction to be crucial because a principal must have a clear sense of how they are implementing the NTIP in order to properly achieve the objectives and the underlying philosophy of the program.

Issues with respect to the Member’s NTIP appraisals at School 1

The Committee finds that there were several issues with regard to the implementation of the NTIP at School 1 during the 2006-2007 academic year, which diminished the Member’s chances of achieving a satisfactory rating on his first two NTIP appraisals:

1. Principal Burmaster was inexperienced with respect to the NTIP and its implementation;

2. The Member did not receive timely support at School 1 with respect to the NTIP;

3. The Member was assigned one of the most difficult classes at School 1;

4. Principal Burmaster had a different pedagogical style and practice from the Member;

5. The Member was told to change his lesson plans one week before his first NTIP appraisal; and

6. The positive aspects of the Member’s teaching performance were under-represented on his NTIP appraisals at School 1.

The Committee finds that the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the NTIP at School 1 are relevant to whether an assessment that the Member was incompetent is a reasonable one.

1) Principal Burmaster was inexperienced with respect to the NTIP and its implementation

Principal Burmaster was inexperienced with respect to the NTIP and its implementation at the time of the events in question. She had only received information regarding the NTIP for the first time during the summer of 2006 and she was expected to implement the program at the beginning of the 2006-2007 academic year. Although she had experience evaluating teachers under the program that existed prior to the NTIP, she was not experienced at conducting NTIP appraisals.

As Superintendent Geiser testified, the competencies evaluated under the NTIP were different from those under the former new teacher program. Moreover, the fact that the Board spent considerable time and resources to educate their administrators about the NTIP indicates that significant changes had been made from the former program. The Committee is concerned with Principal Burmaster’s lack of experience with the NTIP at the time of the Member’s evaluations.

2) The Member did not receive timely support at School 1 with respect to the NTIP

The Member did not receive timely support at School 1, which decreased his chances of success as a new teacher. In particular, the Member was not provided with NTIP-related material or information (see Exhibit 4A at Tabs 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 and Exhibit 4B at Tab 14) in a timely manner. It is more likely than not that the first time the Member received these materials was on January 8, 2007 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 20), despite the fact that they were intended to help orient new teachers to the NTIP. Not only did the Member receive these materials four months into his teaching career, but he also received them merely one week before his first NTIP appraisal.

Evidently, the Member was not provided with sufficient information regarding the NTIP in a timely manner. During cross-examination, Principal Burmaster acknowledged that she assumed that the Member had received a clear explanation of the purpose and structure of the NTIP, including information about the appraisal process, when he attended in-services and workshops through the Board and OECTA in August, September and October 2006. The principal, however, never asked the Member if this was the case. Moreover, the Member testified that the above training sessions did not address the NTIP in any significant detail. The Committee finds that the Member was oriented to the NTIP far too late, which disadvantaged him on his first NTIP appraisal.

Similarly, Principal Burmaster acknowledged that the first time that she instructed the Member or his mentors to make use of the NTIP Strategy Form (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 18) was on January 8, 2007. This mandatory document was supposed to be used as a vehicle for discussion on learning, planning, tracking, and recording participating in the NTIP. The NTIP Strategy Form should have been given and explained to the Member at the beginning of the 2006-2007 academic year. Instead, the Member was instructed to complete the form two days before his January 10, 2007 pre-observation meeting. Principal Burmaster acknowledged that she had given the Member very little time to try to figure out how to complete the form. The Committee finds that this is another example of the Member having received untimely support at School 1 with respect to the NTIP.

In addition, the Member was not provided with timely support with respect to his classroom management issues at School 1. Although Principal Burmaster testified that she had concerns with the Member’s classroom management and daily planning as early as September 2006, the evidence shows that these issues were only addressed several months later. This is problematic because, by the time the Member was offered support, he was already experiencing classroom management issues, and it would have been extremely difficult for even an experienced teacher to regain control. Principal Burmaster should have intervened as soon as she noticed that the Member was having trouble with his class. Again, the lack of timely support put the Member in a difficult position.

Moreover, Principal Burmaster acknowledged, during cross-examination, that the first relevant in-service that the Member was offered to attend in relation to classroom management of intermediate (as opposed to junior or primary) students was held on March 23, 2007. There was only a matter of days between this course and the Member’s second NTIP appraisal. The Committee finds that this hardly left the Member with sufficient time to digest and implement any strategies that he might have learned during the course, and serves as yet another example of the lack of timely support that the Member was offered at School 1.

Mentorship was also a critical component of the NTIP, but the Member’s mentors were not trained or assigned to him in a timely manner at School 1. Ms. Duke was assigned to the Member as a mentor on October 2, 2006, which was one month into the academic year. She only received training with respect to the NTIP two months later, on November 30, 2006. Similarly, the Member’s other mentor, Mr. Dolan, was not trained before November 2006. Following the Member’s first unsuccessful NTIP evaluation in January 2007, Principal Burmaster directed the mentors not to participate further in the mentorship program. Although Mr. Dolan ultimately provided the Member with effective mentorship between his first and second NTIP appraisals, this mentorship was hardly timely.

The above timeline is important for two reasons. First, it shows that the Member was not provided with mentorship from the beginning of the academic year, as contemplated by the NTIP, when he needed it most. Second, it indicates that the Member only received approximately six weeks of mentorship from the time that his mentors were properly trained to the time that they were instructed to no longer participate in the program. The Committee finds this to be concerning given that mentorship was a key component of the NTIP.

Furthermore, Principal Burmaster acknowledged that the only NTIP-related documents that she had provided to the Member’s mentors were those attached to her January 8, 2007 memorandum (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 20). Therefore, the mentors only received the documentation that was relevant to their mentorship role two weeks before they were directed to no longer participate in the mentorship program – hardly timely.

The Committee does not accept College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s lack of success on his NTIP appraisals at School 1 was due to his own apathy, and that regardless of the support that he received, he would not have been successful. The NTIP exists to provide support to new teachers and to create a system whereby new teachers are helped through the challenging early stages of their careers. The program presupposes that entry into the profession can be difficult and that proper support is critical.

The College’s position that the Member could not have succeeded, even if he were provided with adequate and timely support, was purely speculative. After all, only one year earlier at Teacher’s College in 2005-2006, the Member was successful and received positive Practice Teaching Reports from several experienced evaluators (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 6).

The Committee recognizes that the Member could have been more proactive and that he could have sought additional support if he felt that it was lacking; however, the NTIP “depends on principals to exercise their critical role as catalysts for professional development who contribute to the shaping of teachers’ work and skills” (see Exhibit 4A at Tab 9). Accordingly, it was incumbent on Principal Burmaster to ensure that the Member was provided with proper support in a timely manner. The principal’s failure to do this likely contributed to the difficulties that the Member experienced at School 1.

3) The Member was assigned one of the most difficult classes at School 1

The first teaching assignment is critical for new teachers. Even Principal Burmaster agreed that new teachers should not be assigned to difficult classes if that can be avoided. Nonetheless, Mr. Dolan, who was a witness for the College, gave evidence that the Member “had to deal with one of the most difficult classes in [School 1] and […] he survived a first year that many of us more experienced teachers would have had trouble facing on a daily basis” (see Exhibit 16 at Tab 1). The Committee is concerned that the Member was put in this difficult situation, which the Committee believes diminished his chances of succeeding on his NTIP evaluations.

4) Principal Burmaster had a different pedagogical style and practice from the Member

The Committee finds that the Member’s negative NTIP evaluations at School 1 were in part due to a difference of pedagogical styles and practices between himself and Principal Burmaster. For instance, Principal Burmaster took issue with the Member’s late submission of his daybook, but she did not consider that the Member’s late submission may have occurred because she had twice asked him to change the format of his daybook.

The Committee accepts the Member’s explanation for his late submissions of his daybook. From September 2006 until mid-October 2006, the Member had been using the “Red Book”, which Principal Burmaster did not like and asked him to change. Beginning in October 2006, the Member began following the same format as his mentor, Ms. Duke, with regard to his daybook. In January 2007, however, Principal Burmaster told the Member that this new format was not detailed enough. Again, the Member had to change the format of the daybook to reflect the principal’s request. The Member testified that it took him until March 30, 2007 to submit his reformatted daybooks, because Principal Burmaster had told him to modify all of his planning from the beginning of the year to reflect her desired format.

A similar issue arose with respect to the Member’s late submission of his student assessments, which also contributed to the Member’s negative NTIP evaluations at School 1. The Committee heard evidence that Principal Burmaster had reminded the Member four times to submit his student assessments, and that she ultimately set a submission deadline of March 9, 2007. By his own admission, the Member acknowledged that he had still only submitted his assessments for two of his seven classes (History and Art) by March 19, 2007 (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 37).

Nevertheless, the Committee accepts the Member’s explanation for this delay. The Member testified that he had recorded his assessments in a complicated Excel document, which Principal Burmaster asked him to reformat. The Member brought this to the principal’s attention in February 2007, well in advance of the submission deadline, but the principal refused to accept his submission unless it was in her desired format. Principal Burmaster acknowledged, during cross-examination, that the Member had offered to show her his assessments in a digital format on his computer but that she had refused to accept this form of submission.

While the Member might have done well to recognize that Principal Burmaster may not have been as tech-savvy as he was, it was not reasonable to penalize the Member for a late submission when he had made a reasonable attempt to submit his assessments on time. Although the Member’s Excel document was overly complicated and did not align with the principal’s expectations, the Committee finds that this was merely an issue of form and not substance; the Member had recorded his student assessments, but he did not use the principal’s desired format. The Member made a mistake and he did what he had to do to correct it and to learn from it, just as the NTIP contemplates. This should not have been held against him for the purposes of his NTIP evaluation.

5) The Member was told to change his lesson plans one week before his first NTIP appraisal

The Committee heard conflicting evidence with respect to the Member’s preparedness for his first NTIP evaluation. According to Principal Burmaster, she was surprised that the Member was not prepared for his first classroom observation on January 17, 2007, given that she had already postponed the formal observation and allowed him extra time to prepare over the Christmas holidays. According to the Member, however, the reason that he was unprepared was because he had understood that he was going to teach a Math lesson during his classroom observation, but at the pre-observation meeting on January 10, 2007, Principal Burmaster told him to prepare a Language Arts lesson instead.

The Committee accepts the Member’s version of events, which it finds to be both reasonable and externally consistent. The Member had every reason to prepare himself for his first NTIP evaluation. The Member’s version of events was also consistent with the evidence of Mr. Dolan, who had no interest in the outcome of the hearing. Mr. Dolan, who was a witness for the College, testified that he had helped the Member prepare for his first classroom observation. Mr. Dolan claimed that he had discussed the Member’s lesson plan extensively with him and he felt that the Member was prepared for a successful first NTIP evaluation. This evidence is inconsistent with Principal Burmaster’s evidence that the Member was not prepared for his classroom observation.

The Committee finds that this last minute change of plans is yet another example of the difficulties that the Member faced at School 1 with respect to his NTIP appraisals.

6) The positive aspects of the Member’s teaching performance were under-represented on his NTIP appraisals at School 1

The Member vigorously defended his position that there were many positive aspects of his teaching performance that were overlooked on his NTIP appraisals at School 1. For instance, the Member presented uncontradicted evidence that he stayed inside during recess and lunch to help students with their work. He also testified that his use of technology in the classroom, which he saw as an asset and which Mr. Miceli found to be ahead of its time, was ignored for the purposes of his NTIP evaluations. Although there was some positive feedback on his Summative Reports at School 1, the Committee accepts the Member’s evidence that the positive elements of his teaching performance were under-represented on his NTIP appraisals.

The Member showed improvement over the course of the 2006-2007 academic year

The Committee finds that the Member showed improvement over the course of the 2006-2007 academic year, which indicates that he was making a concerted effort to work on his teaching practice.

Principal Burmaster acknowledged that, by March 26, 2007, the Member was ensuring that student agendas were being signed by their parents, and the Member managed to reduce the number of students who were not doing their homework to six out of twenty-four (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 8). As of March 26, 2007, the Member regularly contacted or attempted to contact the parents of students who were not completing their homework or who had not returned their signed tests to him, to ensure that parents were apprised of their children’s progress or difficulties.

The Committee also finds that the Member made considerable strides to address the different learning styles of his students. Principal Burmaster acknowledged that, by March 28, 2007, the Member was effectively addressing the different learning styles of his students (see Exhibit 4B at Tab 40), which had been raised as an area for improvement on February 26, 2007 (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 8), and that by April 2007, this was an area of the Member’s teaching practice that had improved significantly (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14).

Moreover, the Member made significant improvements with respect to his classroom management prior to his second NTIP appraisal. According to Principal Burmaster, by April 2007, the Member had discussed and posted his behaviour expectations in his classroom, he had tidied up his classroom, he had addressed the learning environment in his class, he had improved the student seating plan, and more students were participating during his lessons (see Exhibit 3 at Tab 14).

The Committee finds that these improvements are an indication of the Member’s efforts to better his teaching practice, and they detract from the characterization of the Member’s practice as not improving over time.

Issues with respect to the Member’s NTIP appraisal at School 2

The Committee finds that there were numerous issues with respect to the Member’s NTIP appraisal at School 2, and that many of Principal Bernard’s conclusions on the third Summative Report do not withstand close scrutiny.

The following issues detract from the College’s position that the Member was incompetent:

1. Many of Principal Bernard’s concerns with the Member’s teaching practice were refuted or were not sufficiently supported by the evidence before the Committee;

2. The Member was significantly disadvantaged by time constraints during his third classroom observation; and

3. Several of Principal Bernard’s concerns on the Member’s third NTIP appraisal are not relevant to a finding of incompetence as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

The Committee finds that these issues with respect to the Member’s NTIP appraisal at School 2 call into question the reliability of the conclusions drawn from his teaching performance.

1) Many of Principal Bernard’s concerns with the Member’s teaching practice were refuted or were not sufficiently supported by the evidence before the Committee

Although Principal Bernard may have had a different teaching style than the Member, the evidence before the Committee did not prove that the Member was an incompetent teacher. The Committee finds that many of Principal Bernard’s concerns with the Member’s teaching practice, which contributed to the Member’s unsatisfactory rating on his third NTIP appraisal, were either refuted or were not sufficiently supported by the evidence, as follows.

a. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal because of Principal Bernard’s belief that he had arrived to school late on several occasions

The Committee does not accept that the Member was late arriving to school on the majority of the occasions noted by Principal Bernard, and finds that this criticism cannot be held against the Member for the purposes of determining his competency as a teacher. The Committee recognizes that the school day began at 8:30 a.m. at School 2 and that teachers were expected to arrive no later than 8:15 a.m.

The Committee accepts the Member’s reasonable explanation for his late arrival on the first day of classes at School 2. While the Member agreed that he was late getting into his classroom on September 4, 2007, he testified that he had actually arrived at the school before 8:00 a.m. but that he had trouble parking. The Member explained that he was under the impression that the parking lot was reserved for teachers, but that it was actually occupied by many parents on the first day of school. Because the parking lot was unexpectedly full, the Member was late arriving to his class. The Member apologized to the principal at the end of the school day for his late arrival. The Committee accepts that this was an honest mistake.

The Committee also accepts the Member’s evidence that he did not arrive late to school on approximately eight occasions during the first two months of the 2007-2008 academic year, as alleged by Principal Bernard. The Member acknowledged that he arrived slightly after 8:15 a.m. on October 18, 2007, but he explained that his daughter was sick that morning and that he had to tend to her before going to school. The Committee accepts this as a valid explanation.

The evidence does not prove that the Member arrived late on any other occasion. The Committee accepts the Member’s evidence that he typically arrived at school around 8:00 a.m. and that he would enter through the staff room entrance. He explained that Principal Bernard might have mistakenly thought that he arrived late because she might have occasionally seen him walk by her office later than 8:15 a.m., despite the fact that he had already been at school for some time.

Principal Bernard acknowledged, during cross-examination, that she would not necessarily know what time the Member had arrived at school if he had entered through the staff room entrance. She also acknowledged that there was no regulation that precluded teachers from spending time in the school (outside of their classrooms) during the 15-minute period before the start of the school day. The principal further conceded that she had no way of knowing if the Member had simply returned to his car to collect additional teaching materials, when she recorded that she had seen him entering the school later than 8:15 a.m. on several occasions.

Principal Bernard also acknowledged that she had not raised the issue of the Member’s punctuality with him, aside from a conversation that she had with the Member on September 4, 2007 and an e-mail that she sent to him on October 18, 2007. Following her October 18, 2007 e-mail, the principal did not record a single other instance where the Member arrived late to school. Nevertheless, Principal Bernard testified that she had relied on the Member’s tardiness in concluding that he needed further development in the NTIP competency related to the teacher’s knowledge of his subject matter and education-related legislation.

The Committee finds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Member arrived late to school on more than two occasions. The Committee also finds that the Member provided a reasonable explanation for his late arrival on both of these occasions.

The Committee further recognizes that the Member had a prep period during his first period from September through December 2007, and accordingly finds that a slightly late arrival on two discrete occasions is not a major concern.

The Committee therefore concludes that Principal Bernard unfairly relied on the Member’s tardiness when she found that the Member’s knowledge of his subject matter and education-related legislation was unsatisfactory on his third NTIP appraisal.

b. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal because of Principal Bernard’s belief that he was late to submit his inventory, his register, and his supply teacher handbook

The Committee finds that the Member was not late in submitting his inventory, his register, or his supply teacher handbook, and that Principal Bernard unfairly relied on these allegedly late submissions when determining that the Member’s overall teaching performance was unsatisfactory (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5).

The Committee accepts the Member’s evidence that he handed in his register by the October 17, 2007 deadline that Principal Bernard imposed. The Member explained that there was some delay in submitting these documents because he did not believe that there was any urgency, and he wanted to devote most of his time and attention to planning and organizing his lessons. Principal Bernard acknowledged that the Member had attempted to hand in his register on October 11, 2007, but there was an error on the document that he needed to correct. She also agreed that the Member submitted his register by the October 17, 2007 deadline.

The Committee also accepts the Member’s evidence that he had complied with the submission deadlines for his inventory and his supply teacher handbook. Principal Bernard acknowledged that the Member was one of many teachers who had not submitted his inventory or his supply teacher handbook by early October 2007 (see Exhibit 16 at Tab 12). She further acknowledged that she had not specifically asked the Member for these documents before October 15, 2007 and that there was no evidence that the Member submitted them later than the October 17, 2007 deadline. Given the circumstances, the Committee finds that the Member was unfairly penalized for his allegedly late submissions of the above-mentioned documents.

c. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal for submitting his lesson plans slightly late, despite having a valid explanation

The Committee does not accept that the Member was unreasonably late in submitting his lesson plans as part of his third NTIP appraisal. While the Committee recognizes that the Member did not submit his lesson plans during his classroom observation on December 18, 2007, as anticipated, the Committee accepts that this was merely an oversight and that he promptly submitted them the following morning.

Principal Bernard testified that the Member did not submit his lesson plans on time, that he did not return home to retrieve them as promised, and that he appeared to be avoiding her on the evening of December 18, 2007. The Committee finds that, when viewed in their proper context, these circumstances are far more innocuous than the principal has alleged. The Member forgot his lesson plans at home on December 18, 2007, which the Committee does not have trouble accepting given that this was a very busy day for the Member. Not only was it the day of his pivotal third NTIP evaluation, but it was also the day of the school’s holiday concert with which he was heavily involved through his role with the Choir.

The Committee also accepts that the Member was unable to retrieve his lesson plans from home on December 18, 2007, because he had to assist with some unexpected, last-minute Choir preparations and he did not have the opportunity to return home. Principal Bernard acknowledged, during cross-examination, that she never asked the Member why he did not bring her the lesson plans on the evening of December 18, 2007.

Furthermore, the Committee finds that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Member was avoiding Principal Bernard on the evening of December 18, 2007. Principal Bernard conceded that she drew the conclusion that the Member had been trying to avoid her because she saw him entering and exiting the staff room as she was standing outside of her office. The Committee finds that there could be any number of explanations for the Member’s behaviour, and that there was no reasonable basis for the assumption that he was trying to avoid Principal Bernard.

In any event, the Committee accepts that the Member submitted his lesson plans on the morning of December 19, 2007, which was not unreasonable given the circumstances. This slightly late submission should not have penalized the Member on his third NTIP evaluation.

d. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal for errors contained on his Report Cards that he promptly corrected

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal for errors that were found on his Report Cards when he initially submitted them. On November 29, 2007, Principal Bernard met with the Member to discuss his Report Cards, and she indicated that they contained several errors that required revision. The Member promptly corrected these errors, as requested.

Despite the fact that the Member’s Report Cards were all issued on time and that he had corrected his mistakes, this misstep still contributed to Principal Bernard’s conclusion that the Member’s teaching performance was unsatisfactory. The Committee finds that the Member should have been given more leeway; the NTIP specifically contemplates that new teachers will make mistakes and learn from them.

e. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal because of Principal Bernard’s belief that he was behind in delivering his Math curriculum

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal because of her belief that the Member was behind in the delivery of his Math curriculum. Principal Bernard acknowledged that she had relied on this belief when coming to the conclusion that the Member’s teaching performance was unsatisfactory on his third NTIP appraisal; however, the principal was unable to explain how this issue was at all related to any of the eight competencies that she was supposed to evaluate.

The Committee is not convinced that the Member was behind schedule in his Math class, or that this is even a relevant consideration. The Member testified that he was not behind schedule with the delivery of his Math curriculum; he was on pace with his long-term planning. Although the Member had only covered two strands of the Math curriculum by December 2007, these were among the longer strands and he was confident that he would be able to complete the entire Math curriculum by the end of the academic year. The Member conceded, during cross-examination, that he had not explained this to Principal Bernard. The Committee finds that, regardless of whether the Member shared this information with his principal, the issues relating to the delivery of the Member’s Math curriculum should not have factored into his unsatisfactory rating, given that they were unrelated to the competencies that the principal was supposed to evaluate.

f. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal because of the sequence in which he taught his Science curriculum

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal because of her belief that he was not teaching his Science curriculum in the proper sequence. The principal noted, in the Member’s third Summative Report, that the fluids unit of the Science curriculum should have been taught before the unit dealing with pneumatics and hydraulics. Principal Bernard acknowledged that she had not addressed this issue with the Member when she reviewed his lesson plan at the pre-observation meeting or when she reviewed his lesson plans at length on October 4, October 26, and November 2, 2007. The Committee is concerned that the Member was only first alerted to this issue on his Summative Report, once it was too late for him to correct his practice. The Committee finds that it would have been more appropriate for Principal Bernard to have identified this issue when the Member had submitted his long-range plans.

Moreover, the Committee is not convinced that the Member was teaching his Science curriculum in the wrong order. As the Member testified and as Principal Bernard acknowledged during cross-examination, the Revised Ontario 2007 Elementary Science and Technology Curriculum indicates that mechanical systems should be taught before fluids (which is what the Member did). Furthermore, the grade 8 Science textbook used by the Member presented each unit as a stand-alone topic that could be taught in any order. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal in this regard.

g. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal because of Principal Bernard’s belief that he failed to teach the curriculum for the Religion program

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal because of her belief that he failed to teach the curriculum for the Religion program during the first semester of the 2007-2008 academic year (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5). The principal based this finding on the fact that the Member had not yet prepared his grade 8 students for confirmation, whereas Mr. McCabe had.

The Committee heard testimony from the Member that he was waiting until January 2008 to begin preparing his students for confirmation. He made this decision based on the recommendation of the instructors of the “Eight is Great” course, which he attended during the summer of 2007. The instructors had recommended starting to prepare students for confirmation in January, rather than at the beginning of the academic year in September, because confirmation only took place in May and students would lose interest if preparations began too early. Principal Bernard acknowledged, during cross-examination, that she was unaware of the Member’s reasoning in this regard and that she had never asked the Member to explain why he approached the curriculum for his Religion program differently than Mr. McCabe.

The Committee finds that the principal’s finding with respect to the Member’s failure to teach the curriculum for his Religion program is unsubstantiated, and should have no bearing on the Member’s competency. The Committee accepts the Member’s reasonable explanation for his delay in preparing his students for confirmation. There is no evidence to suggest that the Member would not have completed the curriculum for his Religion program if his employment were not terminated before the end of the 2007-2008 academic year.

h. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal because he was late for his pre-observation meeting

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal for arriving late to his December 14, 2007 pre-observation meeting, which she found to be an indication of the Member’s poor sense of commitment. Although the Committee recognizes that the Member was late for his pre-observation meeting, the Member had a valid reason for being late, and this should have had no bearing on his NTIP appraisal.

Given the circumstances surrounding the Member’s late arrival to his pre-observation meeting, Principal Bernard ought to have been more understanding. The Member’s pre-observation meeting was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2007. The school day, however, only ended at 3:00 p.m., and as Principal Bernard acknowledged, the Member had duties and responsibilities at dismissal that included escorting his students out of the school. The principal agreed that a later meeting would have been more reasonable, given that the Member could not possibly have been in two places at once.

Furthermore, the Member testified that he was even later than he otherwise would have been, due to exceptional circumstances. In addition to his regular dismissal duties, the Member had a student who was on crutches that he needed to escort out of the school. Principal Bernard acknowledged that she had never asked the Member whether there was a legitimate reason for his late arrival – she assumed that it was simply another example of his overall poor sense of commitment. Given the circumstances, the Committee finds that Principal Bernard’s inference was unfounded; the Member had a valid explanation for being late and the principal should have enquired about this before jumping to conclusions.

i. Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member had an overall poor sense of commitment was not substantiated

The Committee does not accept Principal Bernard’s evidence that the Member had an overall poor sense of commitment and that he did not appear to have an interest in learning or improving his teaching practice (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18H). During cross-examination, Principal Bernard acknowledged that she based this important conclusion, in part, on the fact that the Member did not request resources or assistance as often as the other two new teachers at School 2 who were part of the NTIP. Principal Bernard also testified, however, that she did not hold it against the Member that he did not come to her for assistance as often as the other teachers, because she recognized that different teachers have different learning styles and that some simply require more assistance than others. The principal was unable to reconcile these two contradictory statements, and the Committee finds that her conclusion that the Member had an overall poor sense of commitment lacked evidentiary support.

The Committee finds that the Member demonstrated a strong sense of commitment to his teaching practice and that he brought creativity and energy to it. The Committee carefully reviewed the Member’s lesson plans and found numerous examples in which the Member went above and beyond what was expected, in order to provide his students with engaging lessons (see Exhibits 13A and 13B). For instance, in a lesson on the use of simple machines, the Member had purchased dollar store toys (such as helicopters that contained mechanical gears) and had his class take these toys apart to learn about their internal mechanisms. The Committee finds that the Member’s creativity and initiative clearly demonstrate his devotion to the teaching profession, and are not indicative of a poor sense of commitment or incompetence.

j. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal for the way in which he calculated his students’ grades

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal for the way in which he calculated his students’ grades. According to Principal Bernard, the Member’s student assessments were not done properly because the Member had taken the average or the median of student grades when completing their Report Cards. During cross-examination, however, Principal Bernard agreed that both the Guide to Provincial Report Cards and School 2’s Guide to Writing Report Cards indicate that teachers are supposed to identify the student’s “most consistent level of achievement”. Principal Bernard could not explain how that was any different from the way in which the Member calculated his students’ grades. Given that the Member properly followed the above guidelines, the Committee finds that Principal Bernard’s criticism of the Member in this regard was not warranted.

k. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal for not having used a variety of techniques to assess and record student progress

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal for not having used “a variety of techniques to report student progress and appropriate assessment and evaluation techniques” (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5). The Committee is concerned that the Member was never put on notice that this was a concern. Principal Bernard acknowledged that, despite having spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Member’s teaching practice with him in October and November 2007, she never addressed this issue with him before it appeared on his Summative Report. Given that the NTIP specifically contemplates that new teachers will make mistakes and learn from them, the Committee finds that the Member should have been given the opportunity to address this issue before being penalized for it on his NTIP appraisal.

l. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal with respect to his students’ level of engagement during the classroom observation

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP

appraisal based on her unsubstantiated belief that the Member’s students were not engaged during the classroom observation on December 18, 2007. The Committee had trouble reconciling the information contained in Principal Bernard’s meticulous and remarkably detailed classroom observation notes (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 3) with some of her conclusions regarding student engagement contained in the Member’s third Summative Report.

The Committee finds that the Member’s students were either engaged during the classroom observation or the Member was able to re-engage them after they lost interest in his lesson. Although Principal Bernard gave evidence that the Member’s class became very loud and that there were students who were off-task during the classroom observation, she acknowledged that most of the students were still working five minutes before the end of the period. Principal Bernard agreed that the Member’s students were either engaged in the lesson with five minutes remaining in the period because the Member had managed to bring them back on task, or because they were never disengaged to begin with. The Committee notes that 19 of the Member’s 22 students responded to questions during the classroom observation, which clearly indicates an acceptable level of student engagement.

m. The Member was unfairly penalized on his third NTIP appraisal with respect to his students’ level of understanding during the classroom observation

The Committee finds that Principal Bernard unfairly penalized the Member on his third NTIP appraisal based on her unsubstantiated belief that the Member’s students had trouble understanding his lesson during the classroom observation. Principal Bernard gave evidence that “it was obvious that students were not understanding the concepts being reviewed/taught in order to explain what was happening in the experiments” (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 3). After being taken through her notes on this topic, Principal Bernard conceded that the Member was using an appropriate teaching method even though some of his students were unable to correctly answer his questions. The Committee finds that it is normal for some students to have difficulty answering questions, and that this does not necessarily reflect poorly on a teacher’s competence.

Moreover, Principal Bernard acknowledged that her observation that “students were completing the activities without understanding what they were learning” (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 5) was based on the response of only one student to a question that the principal had asked. Principal Bernard could not provide any other example that indicated that she had attempted to determine the students’ level of understanding. The principal also did not review the written responses that students had submitted in relation to the experiments performed during the lesson, which would have given her a better sense of the students’ level of understanding.

Accordingly, the Committee determines that Principal Bernard’s conclusion on the Member’s third NTIP appraisal is unsupported in this regard, and should not have contributed to her overall finding that the Member’s teaching performance was unsatisfactory.

2) The Member was significantly disadvantaged by time constraints during his third classroom observation

The Committee finds that time constraints, which were beyond the Member’s control, significantly disadvantaged him during his classroom observation on December 18, 2007. Although Principal Bernard testified that the Member’s lesson began 15 minutes late, the Committee accepts the Member’s explanation for why his lesson did not begin on time.

The Committee accepts the following timeline. The bell rang at 1:20 p.m. and the Member’s class only returned from outside at 1:27 p.m. The Member had arranged for Mr. McCabe to accompany his students inside, because the Member had to assist his student who was on crutches. Between 1:27 p.m. and 1:31 p.m., the Member’s students got ready to leave for their next class, which is reasonable given that the students had to change out of their winter clothes, gather their books, and line up before leaving the classroom. Once the Member’s students left his classroom, it took three minutes before Mr. McCabe’s students entered the Member’s classroom at 1:34 p.m. One minute later, at 1:35 p.m., the Member began teaching his lesson. The Committee does not find that the Member should be faulted for these reasonable delays.

The Committee finds that the time constraints on the Member’s lesson, which were out of his control, had a significant impact on his third NTIP evaluation. A number of Principal Bernard’s criticisms were related to the Member’s alleged inability to sufficiently challenge his students or to ask them questions to elicit higher order thinking. The Committee, however, is not convinced that these criticisms were a reflection of the Member’s skill and ability as a teacher; they could just as easily be considered a function of the limited time that the Member had to get through a busy lesson plan.

During cross-examination, Principal Bernard acknowledged that the Member was barely able to complete his lesson due to time constraints. She further acknowledged that it would have slowed down the lesson even more if the Member had paused to ask his students additional questions to elicit higher order thinking. The Committee agrees. The Member was on a tight schedule and he had to modify the pace of his lesson based on the time constraints that he faced. Even Principal Bernard acknowledged that the Member had used his time in a focused and purposeful manner.

Although the Committee recognizes that the Member should have been more aware of time constraints when he was planning his lesson, the Committee cannot ignore the fact that the Member was a new teacher still learning his profession, that he had relied on his more experienced mentor when preparing his lesson plan, and that he had sought feedback from Principal Bernard with respect to his lesson plan during the pre-observation meeting.

Based on the evidence before the Committee, it is just as likely that any perceived inability to challenge his students and to elicit higher order thinking was due to time constraints and was not the result of the Member’s lack of skill or ability as a teacher. Accordingly, these criticisms should have no bearing on the Member’s competency.

3) Several of Principal Bernard’s concerns on the Member’s third NTIP appraisal are not relevant to a finding of incompetence as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act

There is a difference between incompetence as understood under the Act and a failure to perform to a satisfactory level in the employment context. For the purposes of the discipline hearing, incompetence is found only where a member displays “in his or her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out his or her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.”

Given the specific statutory definition of incompetence under section 30(3) of the Act, the Committee finds that several of the issues raised by Principal Bernard with respect to the Member’s teaching performance are not relevant to incompetence as defined under the Act. For instance, the Member’s record-keeping methods and formatting, the posting of his classroom rules, and his punctuality do not have a significant bearing on the Member’s knowledge, skill or judgment, or his regard for student welfare. Even if they did, the Committee is not convinced that the Member demonstrated any meaningful deficiencies with respect to these issues.

The Member’s colleagues praised his teaching abilities at School 2

Not only were there numerous issues with respect to the Member’s NTIP appraisal at School 2 that called into question the opinion of Principal Bernard, but many of the Member’s colleagues praised his teaching abilities. Mr. Miceli, Mr. McCabe, and Ms. Gonsalves, who each had the opportunity to observe the Member’s teaching performance on a more regular basis than Principal Bernard, gave evidence that the Member was a competent teacher and indicated that they had no concerns with his teaching performance (see Exhibits 21, 22, and 23). Mr. Miceli added that he was impressed with the Member’s skill-set and with his use of technology, which was ahead of its time.

Furthermore, when other teachers at School 2 learned that the Member’s employment was going to be terminated, several of them confronted Principal Bernard and many were surprised given what they knew of the Member’s teaching abilities. Principal Bernard even noted that a parent described the Member as “one of the better ones” (see Exhibit 14 at Tab 18F).

The Committee finds it difficult to reconcile these positive assessments of the Member’s teaching performance with Principal Bernard’s findings on the Member’s third NTIP appraisal. Given the evidence before the Committee and the issues regarding the Member’s third NTIP appraisal described above, the Committee finds it unlikely that so many who knew the Member and who had the opportunity to observe his teaching performance at School 2 would have been so wrong in their assessments of his abilities.

The Committee is not bound by the findings of the arbitrator in a related matter and gives little weight to the Arbitration Decision

The Committee carefully reviewed the Arbitration Decision between the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association and the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board and the Grievance of Stanley Gonsalves alleging unjust termination (the “Arbitration Decision”) dated November 14, 2014 (see Exhibit 24). The Committee gives it little weight and does not admit the findings of fact of the arbitrator. Since the Committee has addressed the Arbitration Decision in detail in its March 23, 2015 Decision and Reasons for Decision on Motion to Admit Arbitration Decision as Evidence, it will not address it at length in this decision.

The Committee has given little weight to the Arbitration Decision for two primary reasons. First, the Arbitration Decision dealt with employment issues and it did not specifically address the issue of the Member’s incompetence under the Act, which again, has a specific statutory meaning. In particular, the two issues before the arbitrator were 1) whether the third NTIP appraisal was unfair or unjust and 2) whether the termination of the Member’s employment was arbitrary and without just cause. Given that the Committee’s task was to determine the issue of the Member’s alleged incompetence, as defined under the Act, which differs from the task of the arbitrator whose determination was made in the employment context, the Arbitration Decision was of limited assistance to the Committee.

Second, the Committee received different evidence than the arbitrator. Given the extent of the evidence that the Committee has received over the course of this lengthy proceeding, some of which the Committee believes contradicts the findings of the arbitrator, it would undermine the integrity of the discipline process if the Committee were to simply adopt the findings of the arbitrator. The evidence before the Committee, unlike that before the arbitrator, is insufficient to prove that the conclusions on the Member’s third NTIP appraisal were properly supported. For the reasons explained in detail above, the Committee finds that the matters relied on by Principal Bernard in arriving at her conclusions on the Member’s third NTIP appraisal do not withstand careful scrutiny and are insufficient to meet the burden of proof at a discipline hearing, in terms of an allegation of incompetence.

Accordingly, the Committee has given little weight to the Arbitration Decision and it does not make the same findings as the arbitrator.

The Member is not incompetent or guilty of professional misconduct

For the reasons provided above, the College has not met its burden of proving that the Member is incompetent. Similarly, the Committee does not find that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, as the College has not met its burden of proof in that regard either. The Committee agrees with Member’s Counsel that there is no evidentiary basis to support a finding of professional misconduct. This case was almost entirely about the Member’s competency as a teacher; barely any mention was made of the Member’s alleged professional misconduct. Moreover, the Committee does not find that the factual foundation exists for either finding.

The Committee does not accept College Counsel’s submission that the evidence supporting the Member’s incompetence also indicates that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, which should give rise to a finding of professional misconduct. Just as the evidence was insufficient to prove the Member’s incompetence, that same evidence was also insufficient to prove that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. Accordingly, the Committee does not find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Conclusion

The Committee does not find the Member guilty of professional misconduct or to be incompetent, as defined in sections 30(2) and 30(3) of the Act. The College has not met its burden of proving the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee was presented with two general theories of this case. According to College Counsel, the Member was the author of his own demise. He was offered extensive support at both School 1 and School 2, but due to his insufficient efforts and his inability to implement the recommendations of those supporting him, the Member demonstrated that he was an incompetent teacher. On the other hand, Counsel for the Member submitted that the Member was put in an extremely difficult position as a new teacher at School 1 and, with respect to his unsatisfactory NTIP appraisal at School 2, Principal Bernard’s conclusions did not withstand scrutiny and they were refuted by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

The Committee accepts the Member’s theory of the case. At School 1, the Member was assigned to a very challenging class, he was not informed of the NTIP appraisal process in a timely manner, and he was not provided with the required mentorship in a timely manner. By the time the adequate supports were put in place at School 1, the Member was already in a deep hole, which would have been difficult to pull oneself out of, even for an experienced teacher. Understandably, the Member struggled as a new teacher at School 1.

With respect to the Member’s unsatisfactory NTIP appraisal at School 2, Member’s Counsel went to great lengths to refute all allegations of the Member’s professional deficiencies. The Member provided reasonable and valid explanations for his shortcomings, which considerably weakened the College’s position that the Member was incompetent. The Committee was not convinced that Principal Bernard’s findings on the third NTIP appraisal were sufficiently supported by the evidence presented.

The Committee is also cognizant that this was the College’s case to prove. The College bears the burden of proving the Member’s incompetence, but it has not met this burden. The evidence advanced by the College was not sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to lead to a finding of incompetence. Similarly, the College has not advanced sufficient evidence to prove that the Member has failed to maintain the standards of the profession, giving rise to a finding of professional misconduct.

The Member may not have been a perfect teacher, but he was not incompetent based on a careful review of the evidence before the Committee and based on the definition of incompetence in the Act. The Member was a new teacher who was attempting to learn his craft under difficult circumstances. Although he received some support through his schools’ administrators and through his colleagues and mentors, this support was often untimely and insufficient.

Finally, the Committee recognizes the underlying principles of the NTIP, which was developed to support new teachers through the challenging early stages of their careers. The NTIP was designed to serve as on-the-job training for new teachers and the program recognizes that making mistakes and learning from them is part of the process. Not every mistake made by a new teacher should be held against them for the purposes of their NTIP appraisals. When properly implemented, the NTIP should support the professional development of new teachers. Unfortunately, in the Member’s case, the flawed implementation of the NTIP at School 1 and School 2 unfairly contributed to a negative assessment of his performance.

The Committee wishes to thank counsel for their diligence and professionalism throughout this lengthy hearing.

Date: June 8, 2015

Mel Greif Chair, Discipline Panel

Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Louis Sloan, OCT Member, Discipline Panel